XP and Partition

I tried to do partition booting from the WIN XP cd.
I have chosen the one partition to be 40GB. My hard disc is 80GB.
The outcome was 1 disc of 40GB one of 30GB almost and 8GB lost!
I mean there is no third partition, i didnt choose any, so now I see only the first 2!
Any explanations on how should I do the format to have only(!) 2 partitions with the total size of the hard disc???

While formatting I was asked to choose the size of my first partition. And I have chosen 40GB. There was a note saying that the minimum size is 8Gb. Therefore when I have chosen the next partition the last 8GB were lost!

Please help
Can I recover them without reformatting?

80GB is really about 74.5GB :rolleyes:

For some reason Windows always leaves a little chunk. Must contain command and control stuff :confused:

With 800gig I don’t think im going to worry about 8meg :disagree:
But now that you mentioned it ill put it on my list of things to do to see what is in there. :iagree:

I think you’ll find that the “leftover” chunk is really only about 8MB, not 8GB. As for the “loss” of size… remember that hard disk manufacturers refer to a BILLION bytes as a gigabyte, whereas Windows (and Linux, and the rest of us) refer to a gigabyte as 102410241024 bytes, or 1,073,741,842 bytes. An 80GB drive really only holds 74.5Gigabytes of data. So a 40GB partition and a 30GB partition… sounds about right, ought to be 40 and 34… yeah?

Let me reiterate my prior position though. Everyone here knows how I feel but you’re new so I’ll tell you again… there is NO GOOD REASON TO PARTITION YOUR HARD DRIVE. :wink:

there is… at least if you only have one hdd - make a small system partition (c:), maybe 20 GB only for your system and programs.
make a data partition (d:) for all your data (also move the ‘my documents’ folder there).
this way you can safely re-format your system partition without the need to think about backups… (at least if you really have all important files moved on the other partition).
next reason is defragging: if you follow the above method, you won’t have to defrag soooo often, as a stable system (c:) does not fragment your drive that much as if you always swap new files (e.g. downloads) on it…


But will the less fragmentation and ease of reformatting compensate for halving the drive’s lifespan? Every time it jumps back to the system partition to get data, the head seeks ALL THE WAY TO THE BEGINNING OF THE DISK. It makes your drive run at less than half its rated speed, and shortens its lifespan considerably.

well… yes. :wink:

i’m currently running my single hdd with 3 partitions (yes, i’d like to have the money to buy one or two new (s-ata)hdd’s instead) but i don’t have any problems. i never had. this specific hdd is running without errors at a very good speed. the issue you are referring to is maybe noticable if you want to move a million 2KB files from one to the other partition, but when reading big files / only accessing one partition at a time you don’t have speed issues.

below you can see the S.M.A.R.T. analysis of my hdd - as you can see the drive does not have any errors… :wink:

“i’m currently running my single hdd with 3 partitions”

Thats a bad place to be but I hear ya about the bucks. Your entire computer history depending on the function of a single HD. I don’t think I could sleep at night. A complete reload for me (given all data is on DVD’s) Would be a week at least of pain. Just short of 1/4 million files. Hundred’s of programs. I don’t even want to think about it, But if I have to somehow I will live :iagree:

You got a link to that program? Looks like an Everest log.

ps: gurm notice how I also said 8 meg :slight_smile: :iagree:

Yeah I was more responding to the original poster. He hasn’t really lost 8GB. :wink:

You might think so, but let’s be realistic. Windows is NEARLY CONSTANTLY accessing the swap file. Wherever that is on the drive, windows seeks to there all the time. Your temp directory also, but that’s probably on the same partition. It’s not a TOTAL wash, and yes the “half speed” is a worst-case scenario. But you’re losing a TON of speed doing it that way. I understand economics, trust me. :wink:

below you can see the S.M.A.R.T. analysis of my hdd - as you can see the drive does not have any errors… :wink:

Of course not, I wouldn’t think you would. But you ARE putting a lot more wear and tear on it.

Drives will last longer partitioned and intelligently maintained.

that’s not an everest log, that’s an everest ultimate edition screenshot (-part)… :wink:

hey, i’m not depending on a single HDD! I’ve got my external (self built) 200GB usb 2.0 hdd - in combination with DirSync (http://www.archersoft.com/) used regulary (at least every second day) i keep all my files backup’ed very well…
believe me, i re-format often - just because i like the feeling of a fresh windows :wink: :stuck_out_tongue: - and when i have enough time (a weekend or so), and the external hdd is the best method to backup files.
a lightning hit might destroy the internal components of the pc, but not a secured, turned off, external hdd.
so, even if you have 2 internal hdds, your data is not as safe as mine… :wink:

Completely incorrect. Drives will last MUCH longer unpartitioned… and intelligently maintained.

Unless you can GUARANTEE no concurrent access of multiple partitions on the drive, which in this particular case you could not. :slight_smile:

I find it convenient to have 3 partitions; one for windows Xp and programs, one for data and one basically empty. This allows me to make an image ( using Acronis True Image) of the operating partiton to the empty partition and then burn to DVD say once a week and to make a second image of the data partition to the empty partition every few days and then burn to DVD. Having an original, an image on DVD another image on an external USB drive… means I can restore my operating system in less than 30 minutes - without touching my data.

I guess I could always buy another drive but in a one drive pc I can’t see that using partitions is such a no no

Gurn I could explain it to you but what for, you wouldn’t believe me,
give you another few years and it will all become clear.
Seeing the forest for the trees, defraging data.
think platters and multiple heads

No, you’re right I wouldn’t. You could make any kind of spurious claim you like in this manner.

“Hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat is very healthful! I could explain it to you, but what for - you wouldn’t believe me!”

“It’s good for you to stab people and steal their money. I could explain it to you but what for, you wouldn’t believe me!”

“Ford Pintos are very reliable and never ever explode when hit in the gas tank. I could explain it to you but what for? You wouldn’t believe me.”

give you another few years and it will all become clear.

Let’s get something straight, methuselah. I’ve been a computer geek longer than you, I’ve got more experience than you, and no amount of smug, self-important, faux-superior snide remarks on your part will change that.

Seeing the forest for the trees, defraging data.

It would help if you used complete sentences. I mean, you’re clearly so smart and superior. You’d think that someone so smart and superior and smug and self-righteous would be able to complete their sentences to demonstrate their self-importance… right?

think platters and multiple heads

Think IDE interface, single stream, in-order data retrieval.

Let’s draw a little picture. The picture is linear…


That’s your hard drive. Yeah, technically it ought to be a spiral, but I’m limited by ASCII here. :):

Now, your drive needs to seek around to get to data, right? On a well defragged, well optimized drive, it does some seeking around but we try to keep it minimized. When your drive is optimized and defragged, it looks like this:

<----Swap----><System><–Apps–><–Volatile Data—>

So to start an App, it seeks through swap, system, and app areas.

Now, when you PARTITION a drive, you get this:


Now every time the system needs to hit the swap… which is about once a second in Windows, it has to seek ALL THE WAY to the beginning of the drive. Now let’s say that you have a frequently used app… Windows is smart enough to cache it, it ends up in the system area when defragged. But the next time you need a new piece of data, you seek ALL THE WAY to the end of the drive.

Partitioning a single drive eliminates any chance Windows had to be intelligent. It eliminates the defragmenting benefit. It makes the drive seek twice as far, twice as long. In extreme cases it sends the head(s) zinging back and forth from the first to last byte on the drive. Ouch!

Ok but if I unpartition and have my operating system, programs and data on one drive what do I do the next time I make a mess of things and find I can’t boot ? unless I have just made a backup of my data restoring the whole drive will leave me with lost data ?

As to how long a drive lasts I couldn’t really care. Most things pc are only of use for 1 to 3 years and then get replaced.

Loss of speed is also not too important - I can only type so fast.

If I can have the extra speed and the benefits you describe AND be able to backup and restore just the operating system and programs then I will gladly reformat and convert


go over to ms newsgroups if you don’t believe me, that’s where I was in 2000-2002.

This debate about Drives lasting longer Partitioned or Unpartitioned has been going on since start of time, just like the debate on which was first the chicken or the egg! Unpartitioned drives lasting longer might have been the case when they first started making hard drives and were only single head and plate HD’s. But technology has advanced a lot from the days when IBM first started making HD’s and modern HD’s have multiple platters and heads so it’s not reading from 1 plate continually. If a drive has 3 platters it’s using 6 read/write heads and the arms are moved by using a voice coil approach by changing the direction of the electrical current so no mechanical parts are involved. By Partitioning a HD is going to shorten its life span or slow it down is only a very old Urban Myth and it’s been put to bed a long time ago. With today’s modern HD’s the difference in the life span and speed of data access between being partitioned or not is not even worth worrying about. I been partitioning my HD’s as soon as I install them and some of them been running for over 5 years and I seen some unpartitioned HD’s die after a few years. A HD will die the same as everything else when it reaches the end of its life.