| Subject: Partition Performance |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup |
| Date: 8/6/2008 11:50:02 AM |
| From: =?Utf-8?B?UG91bCBXaXR0aWc=?= [Email Address Protection] |
I am receiving a new computer this Friday which will be running Vista Business 64 bit. It will contain a 500 gb Sata 2 hard disc. Now I will try to explain my question as simple as possible: Will having a partition dedicated for Windows and another for everything else perform worse than having one whole partition where everything is in? Considering that in both scenarios everything is defragmented? In my imagination, it would perform worse because the hard disc head will have to move all the way from windows system files to program files all the time. But I'm not the expert, that's why I'm writing this right now :) The reason I ask is that it is extremely convenient to clone my windows partition for ease in backup. But the primary role of the computer will be gaming so performance is first priority. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Partition Performance |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup |
| Date: 8/6/2008 12:02:55 PM |
| From: Paul Montgomery [Email Address Protection] |
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:50:02 -0700, Poul Wittig <PoulWittig@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >I am receiving a new computer this Friday which will be running Vista >Business 64 bit. It will contain a 500 gb Sata 2 hard disc. > >Now I will try to explain my question as simple as possible: >Will having a partition dedicated for Windows and another for everything >else perform worse than having one whole partition where everything is in? >Considering that in both scenarios everything is defragmented? > >In my imagination, it would perform worse because the hard disc head will >have to move all the way from windows system files to program files all the >time. But I'm not the expert, that's why I'm writing this right now :) In theory, you are right: it will be "worse". However, I'm not sure that you will notice any difference. It might only be noticable to a benchmarking tool. >The reason I ask is that it is extremely convenient to clone my windows >partition for ease in backup. But the primary role of the computer will be >gaming so performance is first priority. Be sure to also keep current backups of the second partion as well. Just in case... |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Partition Performance |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup |
| Date: 8/6/2008 1:00:01 PM |
| From: Paul Montgomery [Email Address Protection] |
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:36:02 -0700, Poul Wittig <PoulWittig@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Thanks for your consideration but nothing valuable will be on this computer. >Just for gaming. Just want to keep performance top notch by always keeping >my OS no older than 1 month. I've been able to keep mine "top notch" for as long as almost 7 years without a reinstall. I think you're being obsessive, but what da hey. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Partition Performance |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup |
| Date: 8/6/2008 2:41:30 PM |
| From: "DL" [Email Address Protection] |
Whether you have a single or multiple partitions is immaterial to a decent Imaging application as it will image it all. Generally a single partition is best, but whether you would actually notice any performance differential with multiple partitions is a mute point. Presumably you realise win & the drive is only part of the performance process "Poul Wittig" <PoulWittig@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:183C03EF-98B5-4B2A-B3D9-DB37733CDFF8@microsoft.com... >I am receiving a new computer this Friday which will be running Vista > Business 64 bit. It will contain a 500 gb Sata 2 hard disc. > > Now I will try to explain my question as simple as possible: > Will having a partition dedicated for Windows and another for everything > else perform worse than having one whole partition where everything is in? > Considering that in both scenarios everything is defragmented? > > In my imagination, it would perform worse because the hard disc head will > have to move all the way from windows system files to program files all > the > time. But I'm not the expert, that's why I'm writing this right now :) > > The reason I ask is that it is extremely convenient to clone my windows > partition for ease in backup. But the primary role of the computer will be > gaming so performance is first priority. > > |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Partition Performance |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup |
| Date: 8/7/2008 7:37:44 AM |
| From: Boris [Email Address Protection] |
On Aug 6, 11:50=A0am, Poul Wittig <PoulWit...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > I am receiving a new computer this Friday which will be running Vista > Business 64 bit. It will contain a 500 gb Sata 2 hard disc. > > Now I will try to explain my question as simple as possible: > Will having a partition dedicated for Windows and another for everything > else perform worse than having one whole partition where everything is in= ? > Considering that in both scenarios everything is defragmented? > > In my imagination, it would perform worse because the hard disc head will > have to move all the way from windows system files to program files all t= he > time. But I'm not the expert, that's why I'm writing this right now :) > > The reason I ask is that it is extremely convenient to clone my windows > partition for ease in backup. But the primary role of the computer will b= e > gaming so performance is first priority. Funny you should ask. Just yesterday I was wondering the same thing, because I wanted to partition a new hard drive with one partition for the a Vista x32 partition, and a second partition for data, and I ran across a tech article (I think it was written by Microsoft), that said Vista runs best on a single partition drive because Vista is a 'dynamic' OS. The technical details of the article were beyond my comprehension, but I decided to partition my new hard drive with just one partition. I've looked for the article again to link here, but I can't find it. Common sense says the same thing, As someone else has said, a good imaging program will handle what you want to do just fine. BTW, while I hear that a lot of users like to reinstall their OS every 6 to 12 months, I've had a machine with the original (March 03) XPHome install running fine for over five years. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Partition Performance |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup |
| Date: 8/7/2008 9:31:14 AM |
| From: "R. C. White" [Email Address Protection] |
Hi, Poul. Part of your question requires a "religious" debate. But one point can be answered clearly. > the hard disc head will > have to move all the way from windows system files to program files all > the > time. If you have only a single hard drive, then you have only a single set of read/write heads, all locked together into a "gang". They can do only a single read/write operation at a time, no matter how you have divided the physical surface of your hard drive platter (or lock-stepped multiple platters). But if you have 2 physical hard drives, then you have 2 sets of heads and each set operates independently of the other. So your game can be reading instructions from Disk 0 and simultaneously writing data onto Drive 1. Now, your next question might be whether your operating system or software (game or otherwise) is written to take advantage of multiple physical drives. RC -- R. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX rc@grandecom.net Microsoft Windows MVP (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1) "Poul Wittig" <PoulWittig@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:183C03EF-98B5-4B2A-B3D9-DB37733CDFF8@microsoft.com... > I am receiving a new computer this Friday which will be running Vista > Business 64 bit. It will contain a 500 gb Sata 2 hard disc. > > Now I will try to explain my question as simple as possible: > Will having a partition dedicated for Windows and another for everything > else perform worse than having one whole partition where everything is in? > Considering that in both scenarios everything is defragmented? > > In my imagination, it would perform worse because the hard disc head will > have to move all the way from windows system files to program files all > the > time. But I'm not the expert, that's why I'm writing this right now :) > > The reason I ask is that it is extremely convenient to clone my windows > partition for ease in backup. But the primary role of the computer will be > gaming so performance is first priority. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Partition Performance |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup |
| Date: 8/9/2008 9:26:04 PM |
| From: "Phillips" [Email Address Protection] |
If you look at just one aspect of "performance" (say read/writes per second or such) you miss some other aspects in general computing performance. Advantages of multiple partitions come from saving time for: backups, searches, malware scans, data safety; ex, you can encrypt a partition with sensitive data or, you have a partition with pics, music whatever that you update now and then and thus not need to image it daily and so on. Another advantage is that if you cannot boot in the original system partition you can install an OS on another partition and recover from there and save on same new OS partition. In this particular case, though, since some games do not install/run well on another partition other than the default c:\whatever, I'd make a 400 GB system partition and another 100 GB partition for email, whatever else you want to save - say, game progress files, mods etc. Michael "Poul Wittig" <PoulWittig@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:183C03EF-98B5-4B2A-B3D9-DB37733CDFF8@microsoft.com... >I am receiving a new computer this Friday which will be running Vista > Business 64 bit. It will contain a 500 gb Sata 2 hard disc. > > Now I will try to explain my question as simple as possible: > Will having a partition dedicated for Windows and another for everything > else perform worse than having one whole partition where everything is in? > Considering that in both scenarios everything is defragmented? > > In my imagination, it would perform worse because the hard disc head will > have to move all the way from windows system files to program files all > the > time. But I'm not the expert, that's why I'm writing this right now :) > > The reason I ask is that it is extremely convenient to clone my windows > partition for ease in backup. But the primary role of the computer will be > gaming so performance is first priority. > > |
| Back |