At the moment I got a 320 GB Seagate 16 MB cache storing data.

Then I bought a 250 GB Maxtor 8 MB cache considering as primary partition of

Vista.

 

I will think I should use the 16 MB cache Seagate to install Vista for

better performance. Do you think there are great difference between using 16

MB and 8 MB cache harddisk for primary partition to install Vista?

 

My PC spec:

AMD Athlon 64 3200+

Hyundai (Hynix) 2 GB RAM (PC400)

"Alan T" <alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:uCxnbnsvHHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> At the moment I got a 320 GB Seagate 16 MB cache storing data.

> Then I bought a 250 GB Maxtor 8 MB cache considering as primary partition

> of

> Vista.

>

> I will think I should use the 16 MB cache Seagate to install Vista for

> better performance. Do you think there are great difference between using

> 16

> MB and 8 MB cache harddisk for primary partition to install Vista?

 

Go with the 16MB cache - it will be faster. The cache size is far more

significant in determining overall performance than SATA vs. SATA II or

7200RPM vs. 10000RPM given that throughput never actually approaches the

1.5Gb/s reported on SATA drives let alone the 3Gb/s of SATA II.

 

--

And loving it,

 

-Q

_________________________________________________

Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com

(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)

Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller

partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which

would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore

fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS

ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition

without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to

reinstall other programs).

 

Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a

small partition is good.

 

 

--

Benjamin

If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the

partitions?

2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the

programs (MS Office,..etc)?

 

"Benjamin" <Benjamin.2t9fra@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message

news:Benjamin.2t9fra@no-mx.forums.net...

>

> Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller

> partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which

> would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore

> fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS

> ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition

> without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to

> reinstall other programs).

>

> Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a

> small partition is good.

>

>

> --

> Benjamin

"Alan T" <alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:OLWeCs1vHHA.3560@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the

> partitions?

> 2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the

> programs (MS Office,..etc)?

 

I disagree with Benjamin - I think it is easier for the defragger to do its

job with plenty of disk space to spare but 100GB is a bit of an overkill.

I'd go for something like 60-75GB for the system partition and the rest for

your "data" partition where you can store your files and your Program Files

if you so choose. Frankly though I still can't see a major benefit in

keeping your Program Files on a separate partition from your system files

because you will need to reinstall all your programs (or most) if you need

to reinstall Windows. The only exception is if you are using a disk imaging

tool like Acronis True Image.

 

--

And loving it,

 

-Q

_________________________________________________

Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com

(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:19:56 +1000, "Alan T"

<alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the

> partitions?

> 2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the

> programs (MS Office,..etc)?

 

 

You need to decide for yourself how to partition your drive, based on

how much of each type of file *you* expect to have, based on your

personal preferences, and also based on your personal backup scheme.

Nobody else is exactly the same situation as you, and that's why

nobody else's recommendations on partitioning should be of any

interest to you.

 

>

> "Benjamin" <Benjamin.2t9fra@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message

> news:Benjamin.2t9fra@no-mx.forums.net...

> >

> > Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller

> > partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which

> > would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore

> > fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS

> > ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition

> > without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to

> > reinstall other programs).

> >

> > Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a

> > small partition is good.

> >

> >

> > --

> > Benjamin

>

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files

1) same partition

2) separate partitions ?

 

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message

news:s87r83l24oh61ue1g8af5ps6m19hgqbkvt@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:19:56 +1000, "Alan T"

> <alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>

> > If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the

> > partitions?

> > 2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the

> > programs (MS Office,..etc)?

>

>

> You need to decide for yourself how to partition your drive, based on

> how much of each type of file *you* expect to have, based on your

> personal preferences, and also based on your personal backup scheme.

> Nobody else is exactly the same situation as you, and that's why

> nobody else's recommendations on partitioning should be of any

> interest to you.

>

>

> >

> > "Benjamin" <Benjamin.2t9fra@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message

> > news:Benjamin.2t9fra@no-mx.forums.net...

> > >

> > > Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller

> > > partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which

> > > would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore

> > > fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS

> > > ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition

> > > without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to

> > > reinstall other programs).

> > >

> > > Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a

> > > small partition is good.

> > >

> > >

> > > --

> > > Benjamin

> >

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:22:53 +1000, "Alan T"

<alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files

>1) same partition

>2) separate partitions ?

 

 

There would be little if any tangible performance gains in making

separate partitions, however it is usually smarter to keep the OS in

it's own partition, especially now that Vista is such a NAG and throws

a hissy fit if you try to write to the root drive outside of folders

it likes to claim the rest of the partition as it's own.

 

I've down it both way through the years and see no real difference. It

generally is easier to backup, then again there is little need to

backup program files assuming you have all the source CDs and programs

you've downloaded off the web you saved that to some other partition.

A good backup routine protects what you can't easily replace... your

data files which I ALWAYS keep off the root drive, again making backup

easier.

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:22:53 +1000, "Alan T"

<alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files

> 1) same partition

> 2) separate partitions ?

 

 

 

No, neither. In general, how you partition has no effect on

performance. You choose a partitioning scheme for convenience and

organization, not performance.

 

> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message

> news:s87r83l24oh61ue1g8af5ps6m19hgqbkvt@4ax.com...

> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:19:56 +1000, "Alan T"

> > <alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> >

> > > If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the

> > > partitions?

> > > 2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the

> > > programs (MS Office,..etc)?

> >

> >

> > You need to decide for yourself how to partition your drive, based on

> > how much of each type of file *you* expect to have, based on your

> > personal preferences, and also based on your personal backup scheme.

> > Nobody else is exactly the same situation as you, and that's why

> > nobody else's recommendations on partitioning should be of any

> > interest to you.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > "Benjamin" <Benjamin.2t9fra@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message

> > > news:Benjamin.2t9fra@no-mx.forums.net...

> > > >

> > > > Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller

> > > > partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which

> > > > would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore

> > > > fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS

> > > > ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition

> > > > without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to

> > > > reinstall other programs).

> > > >

> > > > Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a

> > > > small partition is good.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --

> > > > Benjamin

> > >

> >

> > --

> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

OS + prog files can be on the same partition, but try to put it on the

first partition of the physical drive. The read/write head accesses this

area faster than it does the outer regions. This is what I have read.

 

The other thing to note is that fragmentation from program files will

not cause fragmentation in the OS files, if they are in different

partitions. If OS + program files are in the same partition, then

fragmentation from using the programs (especially heavy A/V, P2P or

gaming) can affect the OS files too.

 

Qu0ll, you are absolutely right that the defragger will do the job

better when there is atleast 15% free space on the partition. I should

have added that in my earlier post, thanks for the reminder.

 

But you dont need 100GB IMO. My vista laptop is in my office ATM, and I

dont recall how much space the install takes. But, on my XP Pro system,

I kept C: (30GB) for the OS alone and I still have 22 GB free after even

(forgetfully) installing MS office XP too on it. I have been using this

setup for a year nearly and the install has not bloated much. I havent

used vista for long enough to see how much it bloats over time.

 

 

Ken Blake, MVP371188 Wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:22:53 +1000, "Alan T"

> <alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>

> > Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files

> > 1) same partition

> > 2) separate partitions ?

>

>

>

> No, neither. In general, how you partition has no effect on

> performance. You choose a partitioning scheme for convenience and

> organization, not performance.

 

 

--

Benjamin