How much spare space does Windows 7 need?

[gregglee]

How much spare spade does Windows 7 need?

I am not asking how much total space, but rather how much "spare" space is required on system partition without getting into drive management bottlenecks. And to be as clear as I can, I mean extra space beyond that assigned to windows, programs, pagefile, caches, etc.

Here's the reason. I am considering trying SSD. I have a multiboot system. With conventional drives I just put system partitions on separate drives, with the rest of each drive available for data partitions. But doing this with the limited capacity of SDDs would reduce total capacity too much (unless I add more hdd in external enclosures), even before considering the added cost of multiple SSDs. So I may want to put two or three system partitions on the same SSD.

 

[DeaconFrost]

That's very tough to answer, as it would change system to system, but why not step into a modern solution? Do away with the old, out-dated multi-boot systems, and virtualize. I run an SSD for my OS/apps drive, and store several VMs on my larger spinner. I get near native speeds, without messing with bootloaders. It's a much simpler setup than multi-booting, and I can run quite a few various OSes.

 

[DMHolt57]

80GB works out well, about 12-16 for the OS and 60 or so for overhead/apps

 

[gregglee]

80GB works out well, about 12-16 for the OS and 60 or so for overhead/apps

Thanks, but I am not asking for total. I know exactly what space the assigned files use now. And this space (system, apps, app data, user/app files, etc) is different on each installation. For example one has all the daily stuff. Another has only a single video NLE, because it does not play well with others. The first is twice the size of the second.

 

[gregglee]

as it would change system to system,.

Yes but surely not wildly. I'd guess 5 is too little, 50 more than enough. Can anyone narrow that?

but why not step into a modern solution? Do away with the old, out-dated multi-boot systems, and virtualize... It's a much simpler setup than multi-booting, and I can run quite a few various OSes

I'll have to research this. But my purpose is not to run different O/S.
It is to run certain apps (video NLE) on the same O/S, but on an isolated and "clean" installation, as recommended by the company. As I understand it this avoids codec confusion as well as interference from background tasks.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Yes but surely not wildly. I'd guess 5 is too little, 50 more than enough.

Yes, it can, actually. It depends on the apps you use, how much caching space they need, how big the drive is, how much memory you have, etc. There are plenty of factors that go into it. Look at your current system volume and how much space that takes up. Are you planning to install any apps on spinner drives instead of the SSD? if so, subtract the size of that app. Then you'll know how big of an SSD you'll need. On my work laptop, I can get away with a 64 GB drive, and have 30-40 GB free. On my tower system in my specs, I am using a 128 GB drive (will be very soon). It all changes from computer to computer, and no one else can really give a good answer to this besides you.

As for the apps, there has to be a better way than paying for multiple licenses of the same OS.

 

[SevenUltimate]

That's very tough to answer, as it would change system to system, but why not step into a modern solution? Do away with the old, out-dated multi-boot systems, and virtualize. I run an SSD for my OS/apps drive, and store several VMs on my larger spinner. I get near native speeds, without messing with bootloaders. It's a much simpler setup than multi-booting, and I can run quite a few various OSes.

Wouldn't virtualizing mess with the hardware compatibility? I'd probably opt for a dual boot so that the OS can use every resource possible.

 

[DeaconFrost]

VMs are designed to be extremely compatible. They typically don't even need drivers loaded, aside from the respective VM tools. They also have native and direct access to the host's hardware.

 

[SevenUltimate]

VMs are designed to be extremely compatible. They typically don't even need drivers loaded, aside from the respective VM tools. They also have native and direct access to the host's hardware.

My bad, I was thinking Windows Virtual PC, which is a fail all on it's own. VMware on the other hand is quite good.

 

[DeaconFrost]

It is, but it is also expensive. Virtualbox is completely free, and works very well.

 

[SevenUltimate]

It is, but it is also expensive. Virtualbox is completely free, and works very well.

Last time I checked online you could download VMware player for free. Unless you need VMware Workstation, that's probably got a hefty price tag.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I never messed with VMWare Player. I always assumed it was limited since it was free and they offered a paid product. I use VMWare Workstation, but my company provides me with licenses. If not, I'd be using VirtualBox.

 

[gregglee]

As for the apps, there has to be a better way than paying for multiple licenses of the same OS.

Windows allows multiple installations from the same source on the same machine. No extra charge.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Windows allows multiple installations from the same source on the same machine. No extra charge.

You may get lucky and have it work, but it isn't legit. One license means one install, one computer, aside from MAK licenses.

 

[gregglee]

Windows allows multiple installations from the same source on the same machine. No extra charge.

You may get lucky and have it work, but it isn't legit. One license means one install, one computer, aside from MAK licenses.

The wording is "1b. License Model ... the software is licensed on a per copy per computer basis...2a. One Copy per Computer. Except as allowed in Section 2 (b) below, you may install one copy of the software on one computer. That computer is the “licensed computer.”

Not "one install", but rather "install one copy". Copy means one copy produced by MS, which is identified by a unique serial number. All my installs have the same serial number and are the same copy. I asked MS and was told OK.

Besides, only one installation can run at once. Simultaneous use isn't possible, so regardless of wording, MS doesn't care.

The validation check that Windows does for serial number versus hardware configuration changes sees no difference between installations. It always sees the same serial number and the same "licensed computer." When I changed the processor, Windows saw it on first startup, and required that I rerun validation. But running once was enough. New processor number was recorded against windows serial number the first time, so the other installs didn't require a repeat.

I use the windows bootloader to manage multiboot selection, so windows clearly can see all installs and displays them at each start or restart. Nothing is hidden from windows validation.

 

[gregglee]

But we digress. To my original question, the answer seems to be that no ones knows.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Not "one install", but rather "install one copy". Copy means one copy produced by MS, which is identified by a unique serial number. All my installs have the same serial number and are the same copy. I asked MS and was told OK.

That's not how it's been. This is definitely a gray area, as Microsoft always had issues with people multi-booting the same OS. It's never been much of an issue, as there's been pretty much no reason to ever do so...so it is typically a moot point. In that, I'll agree that we are digressing, because there should be better way that having to reboot into yet another copy of the OS.

 

[WebMattR]

But we digress. To my original question, the answer seems to be that no ones knows.

Well, half your ram, I believe, is what you need for hiberfil.sys, and another chunk equal to your ram itself for pagefile.sys. I would suggest buying yourself a nice, 32gb SSD drive to put W7 on, and then a 2tb data drive and loading all your files from various OS's on it. Sounds much simpler to me.

 

[gregglee]

Well, half your ram, I believe, is what you need for hiberfil.sys, and another chunk equal to your ram itself for pagefile.sys.

Once again, I was asking more how much is needed in excess on everything else. Everything including hiberfil (which I have disabled then deleted anyway), pagefile (which I have minimized), etc.

I would suggest buying yourself a nice, 32gb SSD drive to put W7 on,

Heck, the largest single installation is larger than that. And that's no data files, no hiberfile and essentially no pagefile.

and then a 2tb data drive and loading all your files from various OS's on it.

You may not have noticed the "Systems Specs" link in the lower left corner of every post.

 

[gregglee]

there should be better way that having to reboot into yet another copy of the OS.

Doing installation with only their software is the recommendation of the manufacturer (Avid). Aside from an entirely separate machine, the only way I know to do this for sure is a separate Windows installation.

The issues as I understand are codecs installed into Windows by other apps, and sensitivity to any competition for resources. I don't enough about virtualization to know if that is an alternative.