Halo 2 makes its PC debut

[Spud1]

quite simply, after a partition has been created you are in no trouble, no more risk than a folder.

The problem is when you create/modify them, it's a risky business, I have lost count of the number of times I have repartitioned my drives and whatever program I have used (be it partition magic/commander, fdisk, whatever) has come accross an error of some sort, and totally fubared the parition table or my disk.

I've had this arguement before on here, and there were two 'camps' then, and I don't expect to change your mind, but in my personal experience partitioning is a bad idea, something that just isn't really needed anymore now that we have OS's that can cope with large hard drives. Want to re-install windows without losing all your data? Just overwrite it, windowsXP does a pretty good job of deleting the old install before installnig itself again.

[directhex]

quite simply, after a partition has been created you are in no trouble, no more risk than a folder.

The problem is when you create/modify them, it's a risky business, I have lost count of the number of times I have repartitioned my drives and whatever program I have used (be it partition magic/commander, fdisk, whatever) has come accross an error of some sort, and totally fubared the parition table or my disk.

I've had this arguement before on here, and there were two 'camps' then, and I don't expect to change your mind, but in my personal experience partitioning is a bad idea, something that just isn't really needed anymore now that we have OS's that can cope with large hard drives. Want to re-install windows without losing all your data? Just overwrite it, windowsXP does a pretty good job of deleting the old install before installnig itself again.

let's take an example as to why partitions are important.

let's say you have a server. it serves stuff, logs are created, and so on.

the admin goes on holiday, the log files swell for whatever reason - they fill the disk, and everytying dies.

instead, think what'd have happened if /var were its own partition - it might fill, sure, but that's not a problem compared to the processes themselves dying.

or having /boot on a separate read-only partition which you only mount as writable when needed, to ensure no risk to the data

or keeping /mythtv on a different file system to / - such as XFS or JFS (for large files) compared to a normal EXT3/Reiser3

[Spud1]

What's the difference there between a partition and a properly managed folder/Virtual folder? (in your examples)

You can set quota's for folders to stop that happening, you can make them read only and modify permissions when needed (automatically if you want/need to).

If you had different file systems on each partition then it makes sense yes, but in the other examples you are just using them as a folder..

Generally paritions are not needed, I know people who have 6/7 partitions on one disk - one for windows, one for games, one for music, one for work etc etc, it's just using them as folders but without the convenience and safety they provide..

[dangel]

quite simply, after a partition has been created you are in no trouble, no more risk than a folder.

The problem is when you create/modify them, it's a risky business, I have lost count of the number of times I have repartitioned my drives and whatever program I have used (be it partition magic/commander, fdisk, whatever) has come accross an error of some sort, and totally fubared the parition table or my disk.

The take the time to check for errors first Come to think of it - doesn't PM do this anyway? The only time i've had this go horribly wrong for me was due to hardware error. Then again, they do say 'back your data' before doing such things

I've had this arguement before on here, and there were two 'camps' then, and I don't expect to change your mind, but in my personal experience partitioning is a bad idea, something that just isn't really needed anymore now that we have OS's that can cope with large hard drives. Want to re-install windows without losing all your data? Just overwrite it, windowsXP does a pretty good job of deleting the old install before installnig itself again.

Eggs one basket != good thing. If i want to reinstall windows, I just quick format the windows partition *guaranteeing* i'm not going to feck up my new install, versus relying on windows to do a 'pretty good job' by comparison. The idea that partitioning is redundant because an OS can read a large disk is mind numbingly simplistic. How about the idea of isolating file system damage? Or simply organising your data better? How about fragmentation due to temp files/swapping? How about having smaller, more discreet MFT zones than one ridiculously large one? How about being able to backup, in isolation, a windows drive image (remarkably useful)? How about that backing up at the partition level is many times quicker than copying individual files?

Yep, you're right... you not changing my mind - and you're welcome to do whatsoever you wish. Yikes. The only 'advantage' you've pointed out is that you can't lose data due to repartitioning (which isn't something i do 99.999999% of my computing time).

[Spud1]

Each to their own Partition magic is the one that has burned me the most, it has got better at fixing errors, but the most recent example late last year when I was creating a partition to install Vista Beta 1 on. My own fault for not bringing my spare disc to switzerland with me, still wanted to test the new vista build so decided to partition my drive for it. Reduced my XP partition from 120-100gig, clicked apply, and rebooted. Then get an error message with an error number, and from then on my pc constantly boots to the windows welcome screen and hangs. Great.

[dangel]

Sounds more like an issue with PM - which version out of interest?

[mike_w]

Personally, I've never had any problems with partitioning - that's with fdisk, Windows 2000, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora, Mandriva and Partition Magic.

The only partitioning I do is to have a separate /home, so that if, for whatever reason, I need to reinstall, I can keep my files and most settings. Having said that, I haven't really found a need to reinstall - Debian remains as nippy as when I installed it yonks ago, unlike Windows installations.

[Matt1eD]

No, you will be able to upgrade as you did with XP (which is rather neat if you ask me - i.e. that it works at all!) but i'd still recommend a clean install for sanity

Vista will probably make landfall late this year but the dates still aren't set. It will depend on how the beta program goes, and whether MS want a stable, complete product or a rushed one

It's very stable already. Perfectly suitable as a main OS, I'm looking forward to the February CTP (released on the 17th to beta testers) especially. Primarily for the reason I wanted to test it... voice recognition

I don't know for sure, but...

Vista will use a whole new file system. If you want to use this file system, you will definatly need to format.

However, IF Vista is backwards compatible with NTFS, then you will probably be able to upgrade. However if your HDD is FAT32 (shouldn't be by now!), then it almost certainly will need formatting.

Keep in mind however, that Vista is a whole new operating system. Even more so that XP was to 98/ME. It is highly likely that you will have to re-install all your programs. So what's the point in keeping your HDD intact?

If it's to keep documents, music and/or other downloads then I can understand. Looks like the best thing to do is invest in a shedload of DVD-Rs (or like me and prob some others, have a second HDD or partition to move stuff to).

Regardless of your situation I'd strongly advise a HDD format when you get Vista, and move to the new FS.

WinFS is not a physical file system; it is built on top of NTFS, and NTFS will remain as the default file system format for hard-drives on Windows Vista.

----------------------------

As for partitioning:

I'm a fan, primarily for just management and the way I backup it makes it easier.

---------------------------
For Halo,

Never been a huge fan, so probably won't get

[dangel]

It's very stable already. Perfectly suitable as a main OS, I'm looking forward to the February CTP (released on the 17th to beta testers) especially. Primarily for the reason I wanted to test it... voice recognition

I have major issues with it on my nVidia based PC here tbh - but i'd say 80% of the problem is nVidia's fault Running the CTP from just before xmas FYI.
It is slow as heck atm tho and it's memory footprint leaves a lot to be desired; plus i've found plenty of bugs in the various apps/control panel items. 6600 PCI-E/3.4ghz P4.

[crusader4192]

AGHHHHHHHHH! okay, i know hardware fine...i know a Ti4600 from a x1900xtx, know how to set up RAID 0 with my raptors, and can even overclock my cpu with BIOS (what a big boy i am.) this last computer ive built myself...but when it came to software and drivers and operating systems...i let my friend take care of that.

so, here is what i want:

WITHOUT USING ANY BIG WORDS, WITHOUT GOING INTO NSTD FLAME WARS, WITHOUT RANTING FOR HOURS, CAN SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION QUICKLY, CONSISELY, AND UNDERSTANDABLY:

WILL I BE ABLE TO INSTALL WINDOWS VISTA AS MY OS WITHOUT WIPING MY HD???

dont provide me with rants, because ive already heard both sides of the argument and i dont care. i want someone who knows what theyre talking about... so if you dont, PLEASE SHUT UP

thank you and have a nice day

[Matt1eD]

In truth we don't know yet. However I'd be 99% sure you will be able to.

Potential problems have all been listed.

[mike_w]

As Matt said, until Vista is actually released, you can't be certain. However, although you should be able to use NTFS and just go over the top, I would strongly advise a fresh start - upgrading will probably just cause problems.

[crusader4192]

thank you. what problems might occur? and how probable are they?

[Matt1eD]

Pretty much those summed up earlier. It's mucky not to do a clean install, but the main problem is incompatible software often doesn't like upgrades (normally is fine after a clean install).

[badass]

quite simply, after a partition has been created you are in no trouble, no more risk than a folder.

The problem is when you create/modify them

Thats why you set your partitions before installing your OS and leave them like that.
Playing with partitions on a live system is asking for trouble.

[crusader4192]

okay, thanks. ill probably just burn my docs and important files onto some stuff when we install vista. is the interface similar at all to xp?