Main Site Nav
Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help    
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

To Partition or not to Partition,,Tha...

Trish's Escape from Hardware Hell Help Board » Hardware » Hard Drive and Storage Related » To Partition or not to Partition,,That is the question... « Previous Next »

Author Message
Tom Vargas
Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 - 11:30 pm:   

I am currently in the process of building my first PC from scratch..I went with the ASUS P3B-F
motherboard and a Celeron 500mhz processor
with 128megs of ram. I have a 4.3gig HDD which I am swapping from old PC to the new one...I also have two V2 1000 acellerator cards
(actually one V2 1000 the other is an STB BlackMagik Voodoo 2 card) I heard that they are both the same card...as well as an ATI Rage II+
video card. I feel that I should format my HDD prior to installing it in new chassis,,,,I have my CD Rom drivers as well as all the rest...I've been reading up on partitioning,,,,,should I and would it be a good idea to...also if I do partition ,,what configurations should I use and how should I do it...I plan on running Windows 95 and later upgrading to Windows 98se....also ,,,documentation for motherboard says that it is able to be overclocked,,,any info on that matter..
or should I just leave it at the default setting....
all Info and advice will be greatly appreciated.....
depova
Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2000 - 9:26 am:   

If you can partition it see if you can use FAT32. It will make it so you can put all four gig in one partition. Now the earliest version and the upgrade for windows 95 did not support fat 32. You would then have to use 2 gig partitions. I'd definately try and get it all into one drive letter though.
meknik1
Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2000 - 4:30 pm:   

ok,,,what will the advantages be if I am able to put all four gig onto one partition....i am almost positive that my version of windows 95 (4.00.950 B) does not support fat32....and could you tell me what the difference is between a drive that
has been partitioned and one that has been compressed....thanx...
depova
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2000 - 7:06 am:   

windows 95 b build does support fat32. It utilizes more hard drive space on the drive and gives you faster access time.

All Hard drives are partitioned in one form or another. After a partitioning is done then you format. After the operating system is installed then you can run disk compression. I definately do not recomending compressing a 4 gig hdd.
Trish
Posted on Saturday, March 25, 2000 - 2:04 pm:   

Just a thought...but Win95 seems to handle the swap file much better on it's own partition. Win98 doesn't seem to make as much difference. Or there might be a personal preference...I like only Windows and all my utility programs on C. Another for all my working programs, another for all of my project files (easy backup, not to mention I have lost my C: drive a few times and not all partitions)and my swap file on the same partition, etc. Depova is certainly right about the disk compression! I wouldn't use it on ANY drive!
Danny Albers
Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 - 12:57 pm:   

I agree, disk compression sucks.

Here is a consideration:

Poeple dont usually use the last 50-100 MB or so on any drive letter, so if you use 2 or more partitions, you will waste more space then if you use one and Fat 32!

While fat 32 does take slightly more room, you can elimanate this problem completely by using the compression and setting the compression to 0%. The result is no waste by unused or partially used blocks AND no compression. However, on drives over 2Gb the recommended config is to use FAT 32. Win 95b definately supports this, make sure you use a Win95b boot disk and enable large disk support when you run Fdisk.

My preference is that I dont divide drives up into partations unless the drive is 10 GB or larger, the speed difference is almost non-existent to that point. Just my opinion ;)
Tom
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2000 - 4:09 pm:   

FAT32 is somewhat slower so if you do a lot of file I/O and give priority to performance you will want FAT16 and 2 GB partitions. In your system the older disk will probably be the performance bottleneck so this affect will be noticable.

However, depending on the partition size, the minimum FAT16 allocation of space is large. So if you are storing a 1 byte file, the file system will still allocate a large block to store that file (I think it is 32k for a 1 to 2 gig partition). This is wasteful if you have a lot of small files. FAT32 is much better in this way.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page

HOME APPLE / MACINTOSH ARTICLES BUILD / UPGRADE
CDROM / AUDIO COMPANY CONTACT CPU / CHIPSETS DOWNLOAD
DRIVERS DISCUSSION EXTRAS FULL INFO SITES
HARD DRIVES HELP FORUM JUMPER SETTINGS MEMORY
MISCELLANEOUS MODEMS / SERIAL PORTS MONITORS / GRAPHICS MOTHERBOARD / BIOS
NETWORK OPERATING SYSTEMS OPTIMIZE PORTABLES
PRINTERS / SCANNERS PS/2 - OS/2 PUBLICATIONS SCSI
WEEKLY TWEAKS ADD LINK AWARDS CONTACT
GUESTBOOK MISSING CHILDREN MY LINKS WEB DESIGN

Deleting Temporary Files Painlessly


Updated 02/27/12

2012 Trish's Escape from Hardware Hell -- Privacy Statement