Have I blundered?

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?

All and any advice gratefully considered. (no sniggering please).

Jack

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?
>
> All and any advice gratefully considered. (no sniggering please).
>
> Jack
>

Yes to all. And I'm not sniggering; it was an honest mistake but now is
the time to rectify it.


Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Actually, it is an mistake that is easily done. I originally partitioned my
hard drive to allow a 40GB partition for Vista and software and, like you,
soon found it filling up at an alarming rate. Currently I allocate 80GB for
Vista which is enough for my use.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..

"JackCG" <JackCG@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
newsE1B0FBE-9D42-4CAB-A157-AEABD370A12A@microsoft.com...
>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?
>
> All and any advice gratefully considered. (no sniggering please).
>
> Jack
>

"John Barnett MVP" <freelanceit@mvps.org.NOSPAM> wrote:

> Actually, it is an mistake that is easily done. I originally
> partitioned my hard drive to allow a 40GB partition for Vista and
> software and, like you, soon found it filling up at an alarming
> rate. Currently I allocate 80GB for Vista which is enough for my
> use.

I've allocated a 23GB partition for Vista, it's currently about 1/2
full. Different people have different needs and 40GB may be more than
the OP really needs.

NOTE: I do keep a lot of files on other partitions, that works best for
me.


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Programs integrate with the OS so there is no value in installing them on a
different drive or partition, because OS failure will require a re-install
of all other programs anyway.. it is best to leave room in the primary
partition for the additions and allow to have 25% free space after..

I have Vista, Office 2007, various other utilities, Nero etc and 32% free
space on a 40gb partition (80gb HDD).. much more, and I am looking at
getting a larger drive..


"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns998173FEBA482xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
> "John Barnett MVP" <freelanceit@mvps.org.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> Actually, it is an mistake that is easily done. I originally
>> partitioned my hard drive to allow a 40GB partition for Vista and
>> software and, like you, soon found it filling up at an alarming
>> rate. Currently I allocate 80GB for Vista which is enough for my
>> use.
>
> I've allocated a 23GB partition for Vista, it's currently about 1/2
> full. Different people have different needs and 40GB may be more than
> the OP really needs.
>
> NOTE: I do keep a lot of files on other partitions, that works best for
> me.
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:47:41 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
<mikehall@mvps.org> sang the following hymns:

>Programs integrate with the OS so there is no value in installing them on a
>different drive or partition, because OS failure will require a re-install
>of all other programs anyway.. it is best to leave room in the primary
>partition for the additions and allow to have 25% free space after..
>
>I have Vista, Office 2007, various other utilities, Nero etc and 32% free
>space on a 40gb partition (80gb HDD).. much more, and I am looking at
>getting a larger drive..
>

I have a 320 GB. My PC is not operational yet, waiting for mobo and
CPU. But I have the HD in the case. If I am smart, I want try to be
too economical wityh my C drive. Reading a few posts and seeing signs
of Vista eating up space like...like...Pac Man
eating...what...dots...I plan on reserving a cozy 100 Gig for Vista.
Running XP now I allocated 6.52 GB for it...and although I always
carefully try to avoid having anything installed in the standard
program files directory and instead putting it on my D: drive for apps
and games on E and on, I have only around 700 MB left. And that is not
handy when it comes to swap files methinks.

Where are the days of Amiga and its fanatstic use of RAM and
diskspace? The things I could do in 2 MB chip RAm and 4 MB fast RAM
were incredible. I could browse the web, run an irc client, run a
picture viewer and have Dir Opus in the background all the time and
listening to some mods as I downloaded from Aminet utils and apps by
the dozens...and at that, if i wanted to, add or remove external
diskdrives when Gates hadn't even thought of plug 'n play.

Programmers these days care little, it seems, about disspace and
memory tidiness.

--

Verger

"What are we in time going by"-- Mountain ( For Yasgur's Farm)

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
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:47:41 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"

>Programs integrate with the OS so there is no value in installing them on a
>different drive or partition, because OS failure will require a re-install
>of all other programs anyway..

Not always true, no. Many games don't care (and they are often the
largest apps). MS Office will die++, as it is almost welded into the
OS, so that should go on C:, but Photoshop doesn't care either.

It's very much a YMMV thing.

>I have Vista, Office 2007, various other utilities, Nero etc and 32% free
>space on a 40gb partition (80gb HDD).. much more, and I am looking at
>getting a larger drive..

MS Office 2007 has a particularly nasty large footprint; about 3-4
times the bloat of previous versions of MS Office. Couple that with
an "air box" (no installation disks, if OEM) and an unfamiliar UI, and
I'm recommending Open Office as the preferred option for users
familiar with previous MS Office versions.

Another bloat factor on C: can be inappropriately large page file, as
happens when you have a large amount of RAM (say, 1G+). You will be
stuck with a large hibername file, but the page file you should be
able to shrink, as long as you don't intend to spawn complete RAM
dumps on system crashes (which may be written to pagefile).


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Never turn your back on an installer program
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

I have two drives, one with Vista Ultimate and Office 2007 plus stuff, and
the other with XP and Office 2003 plus stuff, where stuff is almost
identical give or take very small things.. all of my user generated items
are kept away from both drives..

Office 2007 is larger than 2003, but nothing like as much as you suggest..
Vista Ultimate, on the other hand, is substantially larger, but one has to
remember that it creates volume shadow copies..

I would not consider advising the running Open Office unless the OP did not
want to spend to get MS Office or simply could not afford it
(understandable).. ease of use within 2007 is way better than anything
before it once the user has found everything.. effects/changes preview alone
makes Office 2007 worth getting, in my opinion..

Pagefiles, if left to Windows Management, size themselves pro rata RAM
installed, and as many people do have 1gb and more even running XP, I would
not have thought that pagefile size will make much difference..

Some games and some applications do not integrate into Windows at all, but
many do, and at the point of installation it is impossible to determine
which do and which don't.. it is probably best to assume that most do.. all
of my large games do, for instance, as does MS Office..

The best reason for keeping the size of C down is because formatting is
quicker in the even of total OS failure.. in normal operation, optimum
performance is seen when there is more than 15% free space, preferably
nearer 25%

Even budget computers are fitted with 160gb drives these days, so drive
space is not at such premium as it once was.. those upgrading to Vista using
machines at the lower end of the XP level may have a problem in finding
enough free space, but that is to be expected, yes?



"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:u2b9b3p8765nrorkkodc6jf3lprj36l4us@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:47:41 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
>
>>Programs integrate with the OS so there is no value in installing them on
>>a
>>different drive or partition, because OS failure will require a re-install
>>of all other programs anyway..
>
> Not always true, no. Many games don't care (and they are often the
> largest apps). MS Office will die++, as it is almost welded into the
> OS, so that should go on C:, but Photoshop doesn't care either.
>
> It's very much a YMMV thing.
>
>>I have Vista, Office 2007, various other utilities, Nero etc and 32% free
>>space on a 40gb partition (80gb HDD).. much more, and I am looking at
>>getting a larger drive..
>
> MS Office 2007 has a particularly nasty large footprint; about 3-4
> times the bloat of previous versions of MS Office. Couple that with
> an "air box" (no installation disks, if OEM) and an unfamiliar UI, and
> I'm recommending Open Office as the preferred option for users
> familiar with previous MS Office versions.
>
> Another bloat factor on C: can be inappropriately large page file, as
> happens when you have a large amount of RAM (say, 1G+). You will be
> stuck with a large hibername file, but the page file you should be
> able to shrink, as long as you don't intend to spawn complete RAM
> dumps on system crashes (which may be written to pagefile).
>
>
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Never turn your back on an installer program
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

Thanks for all the advice proffered.

What I've done is fit 80G for C:, Left D: at 160 and tacked the original
C40G) on as E: Reloaded Ultimate and a shedload of apps and all is
functioning as well as before (I'm glad to say) - plus I still have 50 free
on C:

Backups/Restore is not an issue thanks to Windows Home Server that does
complete backups of each computer on my home network every 24 hours in the
wee small hours.
Incidentally I have been using the beta Home Server for several months now
and it works as well with Vista as it does with my other XP machines. I
understand it is being released to the market in the next few weeks and have
no hesitation in recommending it as a very useful adjunct to any home system
with 2 or more computers.

Jack