Separate Apps Partition - Worthwhile?

Piyono

Piyono

0
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
599
Location
Toronto
Hey folks.

I heard some talk recently about creating a partition for installed software and leaving the system partition for Windows. Wondering if there's any point in this practice. Seems futile to me but perhaps I'm just ignorant. It's happened before.

Anyone?

]-[
 
As the software usually (unfortunately) almost requires stuff in the registry, I don't see much of a point to put them on a separate partition. Unless speed is that importat, and the other partition is another drive..

I see more point in having swap, temporary internet files, photoshop cache/temp etc on other drivers and in such a way utilize many partitions=drives.

If windows is bye,bye, and a repair doesn't help, then you still need to install the apps again even if they are on another partition.

File system corruption? Nah.....

Nico to have A-Z partitions? :wink:
 
Separate partitions are not good... they force the heads to seek a possibly large minimum distance from one partition to the other. In comparison, an integrated OS/Apps partition can have the OS and Apps files practically next to each other so as to minimize seek distance of the heads.
 
Seperating data from everything else == good.


Forcing applications to go where you want them and not where they want to go == Bad. It just isn't worth the hassle and in the end, you never win. I've given up the fight and almost always use default locations: It just saves time and brain cells.
 
I personally hate to be "walled in" by partitions on a single physical disc for any reason. However, there are a *few* (very few) good reasons to have certain particular applications use a dedicated partition for their temp files.

There are also some schools of thought about using dedicated partitions for O/S temp files and virtual memory.

The ultimate, though, is to use a dedicated physical disc for such, and if you can afford it, a physical disc attached to its own dedicated channel.
 
17GB? Uh-oh ..... I can only think of one 17GB drive, Gmac, and that's the utterly unlovely Seagate U-Series clunker. As U-Series drives go, that model was pretty reliable, but saying "reliable" in the context of "U-Series hard drives" is like saying "sharp" in the context of "eggs".
 
Ahem .... To surprize many and shock not a few by posting on-topic:

P5-133XL said:
Seperating data from everything else == good. Forcing applications to go where you want them and not where they want to go == Bad. It just isn't worth the hassle and in the end, you never win.
Click to expand...

Just so, humour-challenged one. It's bloody near impossible these days. Sometimes I envy the relics of history (such az Tannin) who actually got to work with an OS that did what you told it to, rather than the other way about - you doing what it says you have to.

Bring back DOS!
 
Tea said:
17GB? Uh-oh ..... I can only think of one 17GB drive, Gmac, and that's the utterly unlovely Seagate U-Series clunker. As U-Series drives go, that model was pretty reliable, but saying "reliable" in the context of "U-Series hard drives" is like saying "sharp" in the context of "eggs".
Click to expand...

Oops - my typing's at fault there :oops: My OS drive is actually an 18.2GB Fujitsu MAJ3182MP U160 SCSI drive (17.1GB formatted) which has served me well for quite some time. I wouldn't let anything as nasty as a Seagate U series drive anywhere near my home system......:mrgrn:

GM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top