Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.laptops > #832

Re: Partitions...

Show all headers | View raw

JakeD wrote:
> mike <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote in news:j99gts$4au$1@dont-email.me:
> 
>> JakeD wrote:
>>> I'm using Gparted to create three NTFS partitions on my 160GB hard
>>> drive. 
>>>
>>> I am thinking of creating three partitions of approximately equal
>>> size: 
>>>
>>> Partition 1: for Windows XP OS and some progrmas to run on that OS
>>> Partition 2: For Windows Vista or perhaps Windows 7, plus some
>>> programs to run on that OS
>>> Partition 3: To be used for storing data files created on various
>>> programs on the above two partitions.
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>> 1) Please confirm: Should I create three primary partitions, and flag
>>> the first two as bootable?
>>>
>>> 2) Gparted offers me the option of creating a DOS partition table.
>>> Should I create one? 
>>>
>>> Many thanks
>>>
>>> Jake
> 
> 
> Mike,
> Thanks for your thoughts on this. Unfortunately much of what you touched 
> on is out of my depth, as my tech savvy is limited. Although I have been 
> using PCs since 1993, and have had to muddle through the usual SNAFU's, I 
> am still 100% layman.
> 
>> Do you have a REAL need for two operating systems?
> 
> Not at present. However, it occurred to me that it would be nice to have 
> extra partitions so that if I later decide that the addition of Vista or 
> Win7 is needed, I can install it without needing to overwriting XP.

I don't have a problem with that, but wasting 1/3 of the disk seems 
excessive.
The problem with dual boot is the boot loader.  If you understand the 
subtleties
of it, it's trivial.  If you don't, it will give you grief.
With one bootable partition, you can boot the install cd and fix up boot 
problems.
With two bootable partitions, each "fixit program" wants to repair itself
without fixing the other one.
Again, if you understand the subtleties, it's not all that hard...so I'm 
told.  I never figgered it out.
More than once, I've had to rebuild everything because I couldn't figure out
how to get the bootloader to do what I wanted...but that was GRUB.
> 
> I've heard of Xbox but have never tried it.
It's virtualbox.
  My hunch was that going the
> Xbox route would be more open to glitches and SNAFUs than using a 2nd 
> partition for the secontd OS. Was that assumption incorrect? 
The installation and use is easy.  Problem is getting hardware support 
to work correctly.  Since it's an emulator it will be slower and lack
some features of the hardware.
> 
>> To that end, I recommend making your OS boot partitions as small as 
>> practical.
> 
> I thought it would make sense to have enough room on the partition for 
> the programs that I'll be using under the OS on that partition, partly 
> because it keeps things organised (no chance of trying to figure out 
> which OS it is configured to run under, etc.

Most programs are small, so, for most people that works.  You will have 
to install programs like Office twice and pay for it twice.
Just don't put movies, etc. on the boot partition.  Most of the free
backup programs won't do incremental backups, so every backup would be 
huge.

> 
>> The time to think about backing up your system is NOW, before you
>> partition the drive.
> 
> OK - thankfully, I don't have anything on the drive to back up.
> 
>> You want backups to be SIMPLE and quick, or you won't do 'em.
> 
> Agreed!
> 
>>  The way I dual-boot is to swap plug-in hard
>> drives. 
> 
> Why do you prefer that option above the option of having multiple 
> partitions on the same internal drive?

Multiple operating systems on the same drive invite problems.
With separate drives, I have only one set of issues at a time.
It's a holdover from my past.
I RARELY swap disks any more.  Just when I'm trying something
major that I'm afraid might hoze the system.  It's easier than restoring
a backup.
If I absolutely have to have linux for something, I boot a live linux CD.
> 
>> Use a free disk-vendor version of Acronis to do an image backup of
>> your boot partition to your secondary partition on a REGULAR basis.
> 
> I tried Acronis on my previous PC. I did the backup, and trusted that all 
> was working as intended. Then, when I came to do my second backup a few 
> weeks later, I found I had clean forgotten how to use Acronis and had to 
> re-read the manual! That's one of this disadvantages of being in my late 
> 50s with a memory that ain't what it used to be! Perhaps if I force 
> myself to use it a THIRD time, the procedure will start to etch itself on 
> my (human) memory. I don't think the procedure was that complicated, but 
> I do recall that it required a certain amount of blind faith, since 
> things like disc images smack of alien technology to me... :)

It's not that difficult...just a few clicks.  Take notes as you're doing
it.
The defaults work well.  I recommend the option to split the archive up 
into 1GB chunks.  Those files can be archived on just about any media 
with most
any current format.  Huge single files limit your options.
> 
>> And it works just as well with a dual-boot system...if you must.
> 
> What is it about dual-boot systems that you dislike?
Dual boot is fine if you NEED it.
What I don't like is not being able to back up the system easily.
Splitting the disk into thirds invites the situation that you'll not
have room to create the backup and it will take so long that you won't 
do it.
I also dislike paying big bux for an operating system that you won't use.

Another thing I do is put the virtual memory file on the second partition.
Most backups ignore that file, but it still requires a LOT of space
on the C: drive.  If you put it on D: you can make C: smaller.
It can be argued that it will slow the system, but if you have enough RAM
that the virtual memory is rarely used, it's a non-issue.
> 
> TIA
> 
> Jake

Back to comp.sys.laptops | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Partitions... JakeD <fgdfgdfg@ghghfgh.com> - 2011-11-07 16:33 +0000
  Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 13:00 -0800
    Re: Partitions... JakeD <fgdfgdfg@ghghfgh.com> - 2011-11-08 09:52 +0000
      Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 04:04 -0800
        Re: Partitions... JakeD <fgdfgdfg@ghghfgh.com> - 2011-11-08 13:39 +0000
          Re: Partitions... BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-11-08 08:15 -0600
            Re: Partitions... "RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 09:38 -0600
              Re: Partitions... BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-11-08 10:02 -0600
          Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 12:50 -0800
            Re: Partitions... wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2011-11-09 20:31 +0000
              Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-09 12:49 -0800
                Re: Partitions... wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2011-11-12 09:38 +0000
        Re: Partitions... BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-11-08 08:44 -0600
        Re: Partitions... wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2011-11-09 20:27 +0000
      Re: Partitions... Tazz <dmswaine@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 15:26 -0400
        Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 12:21 -0800
          Re: Partitions... Tazz <dmswaine@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 19:33 -0400
            Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 17:32 -0800
      Re: Partitions... wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2011-11-09 20:24 +0000

csiph-web