|
Re: Have I blundered?
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:08:01 -0700, Malke wrote:
>JackCG wrote:
>> I got myself a nice, clean PC for my first venture into Vista. I had a clean
>> C drive of 40Gig, E: Drive of 160G and running Windows Home Server I have
>> another 800Gig out on that machine.
>> My thinking was that C: with 40 should be more than adequate for the OS and
>> Apps, the 160Gig on E: would suit all immediate local storage and the 800 on
>> the Server would handle big stuff like Video, TV, DVD recordings etc.
>> Well, I installed Vista (Ultimate) and a couple of dozen apps (Office, TV
>> card, Anti Virus etc. etc.) and to my surprise I find over half of C: is now
>> used.
>> What I wonder is, have I blundered? Am I going to run out of space on C:?
>> Should I replace C: now with a bigger drive and reload Vista etc. and avoid
>> any future angst?
>Yes to all.
I'd disagree, but it depends on how much effort he's prepared to put
into maintaining the installation.
I routinely build Vista32 Home Basic PCs with 32G C: (on 320G+ HDs)
just as I built XP with 8G C: on similarly large-for-the-time HDs.
There are potential advantages to doing so, e.g.
- faster file system maintenance of C: (e.g. after bad exits)
- smaller C: makes image backups more practical
- small C: concentrates most head travel for better speed
- if C: gets fragmented, far less impact (always first 10% of HD)
- data is safer off C:
- can leave System Restore running only on C:
- can avoid the downsides of NTFS (only C: has to be NTFS)
But you'd need to be more conscious about how things install, etc.
- large non-core apps and games, install off C:
- relocate user shell folders off C:, especially Pics, Music, Vids
>now is the time to rectify it.
That is true... if indeed, you decide to do that; this is the time.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
To one who only has a hammer,
everything looks like a nail
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
|