Windows XP forum: Hard Drive too big?

A number of good contributions have already been made here.

1) a separate system partition that doesn't have to deal with frequently updated masses of user data. It will be less prone to fragmentation and - since it is smaller - would be quicker to defrag if you decided to do it anyway.

2) a bit of fragmentation will not slow down your system all that much - the problem was much worse back when drives were much slower and fuller. OS space utilization algorithms have also changed in favour of finding a slot for a new file that can hold the whole file in one place.

3) Whether you do it on purpose (like Zouch) or it just happens to you as part of normal operations - such as installing a larger disk or partition - copying all data from a fragmented drive to a clean one is actually the most efficient way to get rid of fragmentation. And it can also be woven into your backup strategy, which means it isn't really overhead. Just remember, image backups faithfully conserve the fragmentation of your disk if and when you perform an image restore. There are image backup solutions that can mount the backup image as a special file system, so that you can access each file in the backup individually. That is extremely handy when you just need to restore a file you accidentally destroyed or deleted. But it also allows you to restore all the files to a blank replacement disk losing all fragmentation in the process. (The tool I use is called Drive Snapshot, by the way.)

Let me comment on Zouch's statement that "it sounds more laborious ..." - He (she?) is right, of course. It sounds like more work, and for you as the user it is. But! For your computer and your drive(s) it is not. What many may not realize is how much work it is to shuffle the data sectors around 'in place' on the drive, especially if there is not much empty space left to work with. Some defrag tool swill show you an animated view of how the files are shoved back and forth on the drive, resulting in lots of huge seek operations. And in the end each bit of data will be moved more than just once or twice.

Copying from one drive to another can take advantage of a great luxury - the second drive has its own head assembly on its own arm. The source drive will have to chase the cluster chains across the whole surface, but the destination drive will write them out in sequence with minimal arm movements.

But the key advice probably still comes from Douglas Adams: "Don't panic!" - In most cases an image file of, say, 3 to 10 MB will be stored in no more than 3 to 5 fragments. When you retrieve such a file the seek operations between the fragments will hardly be noticeable on today's hardware.

4) Let me quickly explain why the advice to get a modern computer with faster processors and more memory is helping the defrag operations (aside from the fact that newer SATA drives are significant faster than the old IDE drives): Since defragging takes place on a single drive and all data must first be moved "out of the way" before it can be arranged in the desired configuration everything will help: faster disk, more free space, more memory to cache the transfer operations resulting in fewer seeks, and finally, the NTFS file system will support the whole operation with an overall smarter way to arrange directory and 'payload' data on the disk.

And finally, with all that, I can't remember when I have defrragged a drive 'in anger' - I may have demonstrated to someone the animation of a defrag operation in order to impress on them how much overhead it actually is ...

But above all: Don't panic! In most situations there is no prize for coming in first, so the optimally defragmented drive that will boost your operations with a 5% speed increase will cost you in long defrag sessions ...

Gerdd, this explains things really well! Many thanks for taking the time to give me this information.

Regards,

Chris.

I'm going to look a right idiot now! I tagged this as the "best answer" by mistake! I hope I'm not the first to do this.

I appreciate your reply as it's explained more about what can happen/go wrong with fragmentation of files, which means I've learned some more, so thank for that Zouch,

Regards,

Chris.

Kees,

I like your answer to No:1
I should have said, I use defraggler although I have not come across Contig before, I'll have to check that one out,

Chris.

Can I add another partition for the O/S only now I've been using the H/D for 4mths?

Chris.

as I have been thinking about upgrading to Windows 7 professional 64 bit on a new computer, the only thing that's holding me back is the expense.
When the time comes I hope to be looking at either a Pentium i3 or i5 CPU. I would like to hear what others (including yourself) have to suggest for my needs processor-wise, but I'll start another thread for that.

Thanks for your reply TMV, as it's backed up what I have been thinking.

Regards,

Chris.

Stormsteel,

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, but there was a problem with my CNet account, that wouldn't let me log on. Now, on to your conundrum. Almost every computer on sale today comes loaded with Windows 8, and I don't think that's what you want. If you go on line to do your shopping, and select the business section of the manufactures inventory, you will find that almost all the computers there come loaded with Windows 7 Pro 64. Just for an example, log on to Dell.com, but instead of choosing Home & Office, choose Business. There, you will find a landscape full of Laptops, and Desktops, all with Windows 7.

As for you CPU, if your going to be working with photo editing, the more cores you have, the better. If your working with Adobe Creative Suite, it will take advantage of all your cores. When I bought my computer I had them put in an Intel i7-2600, with 4 cores, and lots of cache. I felt it was a good compromise, in that it would run my current software, and could easily handle any new software that would come along in the next seven, to ten years. In fact I proved this to myself, when I installed Windows 8 Pro 64, in a virtual machine. I can run Win 7 Pro 64, and Win 8 Pro 64 at the same time with no loss of speed.

However, with the new Intel CPU's coming on the market, the price of the current generation of CPU's is bound to drop. Also, if your having your computer built to your specifications, the is nothing that says you have to install an Intel CPU. You could always go with an AMD chip. There are great deals to be had there. So what ever you decide, go with my simple rule, "Buy the best that you can afford", and you wont go wrong.

Regards,
TMV

TMV,
Many thanks for getting back to me, your post is very helpful and informative.
As much as I would like an Intel i7 processor, an i5 will most likely be my limit. At least the i5 has four cores, whereas the i3 only has two. Yes I am using Adobe P/S.
Thanks for the suggestion of looking on the Dell.com Business section, however I'm planning on building my own new pc when the time comes. I'm intending to purchase and install Windows 7 Pro 64 bit O/S. At least support is available until 2020 for Windows 7.
I don't really know very much about the AMD processors, only what I have read, as I've always had Intel.
"Buy the best that you can afford" sounds like good advice!
<span>Many thanks,

<span>Regards,

<span>Chris.

Dear Stormsteel,

Good for you. I have built many computers in my time, and there is nothing like the satisfaction of turning it on for the first time, and having it boot up. I too have always had Intel CPU's, but I just read the other day on CNet an article about CPU's. While the top of the line Intel was going for around $1000.00, the comparable AMD was only around $400.00. That's a big price savings. With the money you save, you can max out your memory, and get a really huge hard drive.

I'm not shilling for AMD, I have, and am using an Intel chip, but I had the money to have Dell build my PC to my specification's. You say that you are working on a budget, and that retail, or OEM copy of Windows 7 is going to cost you as well. Why not go to the CNet web page, and search the review section for the Intel, and AMD chips. See what they have to say about them, it might give you some incite as to what the experts think. Anyway, what ever you decide for yourself, all the best, and remember the entire forum is here to help you if you need us.

Regards,
TMV

Hi TMV,

Thanks for the confidence boost on building my own computer, and for the advice.
That is a good idea about having a look at the review section on here for the Intel and AMD processors, also a very good reminder about the entire forum being here if I need help!

A very interesting point about that article you read on the differences between Intel and AMD comparable CPU price.

I am looking forward to the actual build when the time comes, and also the learning process of doing this. I'm sure you are right I will get great satisfaction from turning it on and having it boot up for the first time.

Many thanks for your reply.

Regards,

Chris.

Chris,

When you do get the point of buying your operating system, consider the difference between the OEM version, and the Retail Version, and I don't mean price. If you go for the OEM version, and later have a question, or need help, Microsoft doesn't want to know you. However, if you lay down the extra cash for the Retail version, you are considered to be a Microsoft Customer, and are entitled to tech support on the phone, or on the Web.

The free tech support is nice, but if your OS is working, you can still register on the Microsoft forums, (they call it Microsoft Community {http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us}) and post questions to other users on the forums, just like here. Only you can decide if you want to spend the extra cash for the retail version, just for the tech support.

If your building your own computer, your only warrantee is from the various parts suppliers. I assume you are going to get your parts from reputable suppliers. Microsoft is a supplier, so now you know what to expect from them. Have fun, this can be a real learning experience for you.
Regards,
TMV