Would this be a good idea (hard drive)?

[mafhh]

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

 

[pparks1]

You really can create however many partitions you want. I think putting your data onto a separate partition is a great idea...this way you can reinstall/reimage your C drive to recover an OS without losing any data.

The number of partitions only becomes a real problem when you have to make them so small that they aren't usable. For example, a 20GB C drive to run Windows 7 just won't cut it for long.

Having everything on one partition or 5 partitions on the same hard drive won't really impact performance. It's the same disk at the end of the day. Having things on separate physical hard drives however will increase performance.

 

[DeaconFrost]

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.

 

[Solarstarshines]

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.

I actually like what decon is saying one drive multiple drives and letters is a bad idea .you can do as many partitions as you like but i would think sooner or later you're going to brick that drive .

do two partions on the main then add other drives along with it even a back up for storage via usb and you can restric members form certain aspects if you are the admin

food for thought that is all because once you killed the drive you have to start from zero noone likes to do that also you can do alot of image back up and slam them to your flash drive or send them to the back up external which wouldnt be used as hard as the c drive is . Also would save you from corruption as well

 

[mjf]

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).

 

[thehappyman]

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

Hi mafhh - Voted Bad Idea - In this day and age you can pick up a Western Digital 1 Terabyte internal drive for LESS than $100. Is your 140 GB drive an SSD ????? You dont say in your specs.

I cant imagine any other reason for not getting a larger (or second) hard drive - it would make life a bit easier.

 

[James Colbert]

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

 

[GeneO]

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.

 

[mjf]

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.

 

[thefabe]

I voted bad for all the reason posted above but mostly because it's such a small drive.
Fabe

 

[Dwarf]

Voted bad idea. Main reason is a size issue - 140GB is a bit small to divide up into as many partitions as you suggest.

 

[mafhh]

Fine. I'll buy a 1 Trb harddisk. Now what?

This topic is unusable. Please go to this: http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/139322-would-good-idea-hard-drive-new.html


Thanks for all the help BTW!

(Is there any way i can close this topic?)