Ok attention all XP gurus

[Doog]

I just installed a 1TB WD HD on my Dell Precision 390 running WinXP Sp3. The Winxp formatted and installed the OS with zero issues. My question (s) are this:

Since I only need about 150GB should I partition the drive into 2 or 3 separate partitions to make the OS more efficient?

Will this make any difference in speed?

 

[Dyusik]

Real speed gains are from two hdd. Partition will cause less of a mess. Why not run a cheap20-40 gig dedicated os hdd and rest for the big boy. I do that.

 

[Doog]

I already have the 1tb installed

 

[d00df00d]

Assuming this is for a platter hard drive. None of this matters for an SSD.

The main benefit to partitioning your hard drive is to cut down on fragmentation. Best way to do that is to have at least three partitions: one for your OS and applications, one for nothing but your page file, and one for everything else.

When the install is completely fresh, this setup might be a hair slower just because seek times might be longer. However, when the applications and data pile up, the speed will be more consistent; whereas a single partition will start fragmenting and slowing down pretty quickly, the partitioned setup will keep things cleaner longer (and keep the page file completely intact).

 

[pitzel]

Its a sort of tradeoff. Restricting the drive to the first, say, 200gb, will reduce average seek times as only the inner tracks of the drive will be used. But it might come at the cost of higher fragmentation which will cause more seeks to be necessary.

Basically put, if you have any performance concerns, you probably should replace the drive with a SSD. 240gb SSDs can be had for as little as $100 these days and are fully compatible with all computers with SATA ports. Otherwise, just leave it as a single partition and let WindowsXP optimize where its putting the files.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: pitzel
Its a sort of tradeoff. Restricting the drive to the first, say, 200gb, will reduce average seek times as only the inner tracks of the drive will be used. But it might come at the cost of higher fragmentation which will cause more seeks to be necessary.

Basically put, if you have any performance concerns, you probably should replace the drive with a SSD. 240gb SSDs can be had for as little as $100 these days and are fully compatible with all computers with SATA ports. Otherwise, just leave it as a single partition and let WindowsXP optimize where its putting the files.


I tried an SSD with XP and had all kinds of error issues. So, I wont be going SSD until I go to Win7

 

[razel]

Yes, partitioning your 1 TB HDD into 150 GB for the OS will increase performance. It's an old technique called short stroking. I know... I know... funny.

By using only 150GB partition vs 1TB you're keeping data from spreading through the entire disk keeping the head from travelling around. Also the beginning of the disk is faster then the ends. Usually double the sequential and access speed. I remember when the WD Raptors (10k RPM/80GB I think) were the fastest until the Samsung F1s (7.2K/1TB) came out and short stroking those to 80GB made them FASTER than the WD Raptors.

Of course, here comes the SSD train. SSDs are cheap and buying one now, you can continue to use it with until your next, next, maybe even next system as long as SATA is around. You can buy 480GB for $140 on a hot sale these days. Crucial even had refurb 256GB for $50 recently. XP has no data issues with SSDs. It's just support for TRIM, but modern SSDs handle OSs without TRIM just fine. In the beginning there were issues, but not anymore. It's a problem solved.

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted By: pitzel
Its a sort of tradeoff. Restricting the drive to the first, say, 200gb, will reduce average seek times as only the inner tracks of the drive will be used. But it might come at the cost of higher fragmentation which will cause more seeks to be necessary.



they start from the outside in.

 

[Doog]

Just as a follow up I installed the 1TB drive and winxp and all of the other related software and then went to the Dell website and downloaded all of the software/firmware upgrades and installed them. There were about 16 for my system. Than after that was all done I ran the disk derangement program.

This thing is lightning fast and super quiet. No more Seagate for me I am all Western Digital now. I should definitely be able to get my 2-3 year out of this system until I move my office.

I did not partition the drive.

 

[stockrex]

Originally Posted By: Doog
I just installed a 1TB WD HD on my Dell Precision 390 running WinXP Sp3. The Winxp formatted and installed the OS with zero issues. My question (s) are this:

Since I only need about 150GB should I partition the drive into 2 or 3 separate partitions to make the OS more efficient?

Will this make any difference in speed?


2 partitions,
1. for OS
2. for data

so if you ever have to reinstall, you can wipe partition 1 and reinstall, will not affect #2.

as others have said you really need a 2nd drive on separate chain if IDE to make things faster.

here is what I do:
1. small 500 gig drive (7200 rpm if possible) for OS
2. 2nd drive for data and PAGEFILE and TMP/TEMP folders

 

[ueberooo]

I think 3 or 4 partitions on the order of 200-350 GB would be good.

1. Window XP OS (250)
2. User Data (250)
3. Alt/future OS, egLinux (250)
4. Backup (250) with a filesystem not accessible from Windows

Explanation for 4.: To protect against viruses and to use as backup space for other drives and computers.

 

[BearZDefect]

Partitioning a storage device into multiple volumes has both advantages and disadvanges. The advantages have already been outlined by others above.

The disadvantage is you now have a rigid division of your storage capacity. For most users, including myself, I recommend a single partition for simplicity.

It's a different situation with servers. In a server with 4 SAS platter disks I much prefer two RAID 1 volumes. I understand some choose one RAID 5 volume to get more capacity. But with two RAID 1 volumes performance can be significantly better, because the two volumes are composed of independent storage devices, so the server's workload (databases, file storage, etc) can be configured to minimize contention over the same storage device.

Naturally, SSD storage has different considerations.

 

[Donald]

Why would anyone choose to still be running Win XP? Even if it runs fine and you like it, its inherently less secure than Win 7 or above. And you are maxed at 3.3 GB of memory with Win XP. Not saying you have to love Win 8, but Win XP should be put out to pasture.

 

[d00df00d]

Pretty sure the RAM limitation is just for the 32-bit version of XP. Definitely sure it applies to any 32-bit OS, including Windows 7 32-bit.

Either way, I can see using XP for a light duty machine operated by a sane individual -- IF and ONLY IF you don't have a valid license for anything else. I just set up a machine with XP for that reason. Said machine also only has 1 GB RAM, which is fine for XP but a bit low for 7 or 8.

 

[zzyzzx]

Originally Posted By: Donald
Why would anyone choose to still be running Win XP? Even if it runs fine and you like it, its inherently less secure than Win 7 or above. And you are maxed at 3.3 GB of memory with Win XP. Not saying you have to love Win 8, but Win XP should be put out to pasture.


Windows XP just works too good for me to want to get rid of it. Besides that, I mostly use Linux. I only use Windows XP when I have to (like using my scanner).

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: Donald
Why would anyone choose to still be running Win XP? Even if it runs fine and you like it, its inherently less secure than Win 7 or above. And you are maxed at 3.3 GB of memory with Win XP. Not saying you have to love Win 8, but Win XP should be put out to pasture.


I am squeezing another 2 years out of my whole network at my office and then moving and using an ASP to host my data and email and website. So in 2 years all of the machines go to the scrap heap. Plus I have no applications that take more than 500Mb of ram. So 3.4Gb is plenty.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: Donald
Why would anyone choose to still be running Win XP?


Same reason you are driving a 16 year old truck??