Windows Vista Forums

Vista 64 Ultimate, Should Program Files be moved to seperate parti

  1. #1


    dswofford Guest

    Vista 64 Ultimate, Should Program Files be moved to seperate parti

    I have Vista 64 Ultimate. In previous windows I kept programfiles in
    seperate partion because I heard this was good logic for performance etc. Is
    this the case in vista 64? If so how do I do this?

    If not should I just increase vista's partition size? I am at 30GB now on a
    250 GB WD Cavier Sata II

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  2. #2


    Ken Blake, MVP Guest

    Re: Vista 64 Ultimate, Should Program Files be moved to seperate parti

    dswofford wrote:

    > I have Vista 64 Ultimate. In previous windows I kept programfiles in
    > seperate partion because I heard this was good logic for performance
    > etc. Is this the case in vista 64?



    No. It never made much sense in earlier versions of Windows, and it doesn't
    make much sense in Vista. Any difference in performance iwill almost
    certainly be tiny, but best performance results from having the program
    files in the same partition as Windows, thus minimizing head travel to and
    from the applications.

    Most people who recommend separating the operating system and installed
    applications on different partitions recommend it because think that if they
    ever have to reinstall Windows, their applications will remain. They are
    wrong. Even if your applications are installed on a partition separate from
    that the operating system is on, you
    can *not* reinstall the operating system without losing the applications.
    The reason is that all applications (except for a very occasional
    near-trivial one) have entries and pointers to them within Windows, in the
    registry and elsewhere. With Windows gone, all those entries get lost, and
    the applications get broken. So that benefit goes away.

    My view is that most people's partitioning scheme should be based on their
    backup scheme. If, for example, you backup by creating a clone or image of
    the entire drive, then a single partition might be best. If, on the other
    hand, you backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by
    having all data in a separate partition.

    Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom any
    benefit to having more than two partitions.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup



      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  3. #3


    ncgmac Guest

    Re: Vista 64 Ultimate, Should Program Files be moved to seperate parti

    On Apr 7, 5:54 pm, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain>
    wrote:
    > dswofford wrote:
    > > I have Vista 64 Ultimate. In previous windows I kept programfiles in
    > > seperate partion because I heard this was good logic for performance
    > > etc. Is this the case in vista 64?

    >
    > No. It never made much sense in earlier versions of Windows, and it doesn't
    > make much sense in Vista. Any difference in performance iwill almost
    > certainly be tiny, but best performance results from having the program
    > files in the same partition as Windows, thus minimizing head travel to and
    > from the applications.
    >
    > Most people who recommend separating the operating system and installed
    > applications on different partitions recommend it because think that if they
    > ever have to reinstall Windows, their applications will remain. They are
    > wrong. Even if your applications are installed on a partition separate from
    > that the operating system is on, you
    > can *not* reinstall the operating system without losing the applications.
    > The reason is that all applications (except for a very occasional
    > near-trivial one) have entries and pointers to them within Windows, in the
    > registry and elsewhere. With Windows gone, all those entries get lost, and
    > the applications get broken. So that benefit goes away.
    >
    > My view is that most people's partitioning scheme should be based on their
    > backup scheme. If, for example, you backup by creating a clone or image of
    > the entire drive, then a single partition might be best. If, on the other
    > hand, you backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by
    > having all data in a separate partition.
    >
    > Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom any
    > benefit to having more than two partitions.
    >
    > --
    > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    > Please reply to the newsgroup


    I have a follow up question. Prior to Vista Windows would spend time
    doing a partial defrag on the primary partition. If you had a second
    partition, say for your My Documents Folder, that partition was
    ignored.

    With all the whiz bang new self performance tuning, does Vista still
    optimize just the partition it resides on, or does it reach out to the
    other partitions as well.

    I'm asking because I've always perferred to have my documents on a
    second partition in case of a virus or some such ugliness.

    Thanks for the info.

    Gary


      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  4. #4


    Ken Blake, MVP Guest

    Re: Vista 64 Ultimate, Should Program Files be moved to seperate parti

    ncgmac wrote:

    > On Apr 7, 5:54 pm, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain>
    > wrote:
    >> dswofford wrote:
    >>> I have Vista 64 Ultimate. In previous windows I kept programfiles
    >>> in seperate partion because I heard this was good logic for
    >>> performance etc. Is this the case in vista 64?

    >>
    >> No. It never made much sense in earlier versions of Windows, and it
    >> doesn't make much sense in Vista. Any difference in performance
    >> iwill almost certainly be tiny, but best performance results from
    >> having the program files in the same partition as Windows, thus
    >> minimizing head travel to and from the applications.
    >>
    >> Most people who recommend separating the operating system and
    >> installed applications on different partitions recommend it because
    >> think that if they ever have to reinstall Windows, their
    >> applications will remain. They are wrong. Even if your applications
    >> are installed on a partition separate from that the operating system
    >> is on, you
    >> can *not* reinstall the operating system without losing the
    >> applications. The reason is that all applications (except for a very
    >> occasional near-trivial one) have entries and pointers to them
    >> within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere. With Windows gone,
    >> all those entries get lost, and the applications get broken. So that
    >> benefit goes away.
    >>
    >> My view is that most people's partitioning scheme should be based on
    >> their backup scheme. If, for example, you backup by creating a clone
    >> or image of the entire drive, then a single partition might be best.
    >> If, on the other hand, you backup only your data, then the backup
    >> process is facilitated by having all data in a separate partition.
    >>
    >> Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom
    >> any benefit to having more than two partitions.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    >> Please reply to the newsgroup

    >
    > I have a follow up question. Prior to Vista Windows would spend time
    > doing a partial defrag on the primary partition. If you had a second
    > partition, say for your My Documents Folder, that partition was
    > ignored.
    >
    > With all the whiz bang new self performance tuning, does Vista still
    > optimize just the partition it resides on, or does it reach out to the
    > other partitions as well.
    >
    > I'm asking because I've always perferred to have my documents on a
    > second partition in case of a virus or some such ugliness.



    I don't know the answer to your question, but I have two points in regard to
    your last paragraph:

    1. Having your documents on a separate partition, while it often has
    advantages for some people, does very little or nothing to protect you
    against a virus.

    2. Every time I hear about someone who uses his partitioning scheme to
    protect his data against *anything*, I assume that he uses that partitioning
    scheme instead of a thorough backup scheme. If that's the case, you are
    kidding yourself. The *only* real protection for your data is backup.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup



      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  5. #5


    Tom Lake Guest

    Re: Vista 64 Ultimate, Should Program Files be moved to seperate parti

    > 2. Every time I hear about someone who uses his partitioning scheme to
    > protect his data against *anything*, I assume that he uses that
    > partitioning scheme instead of a thorough backup scheme. If that's the
    > case, you are kidding yourself. The *only* real protection for your data
    > is backup.


    I use a separate partition so I can clean install an OS every few months
    without touching my emails (yes I have the message store on a separate
    partition) documents or other program data. On machines where I have
    a second hard drive, I use that instead of a separate logical partition.

    Tom Lake



      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  6. #6


    Ray Rogers Guest

    Re: Vista 64 Ultimate, Should Program Files be moved to seperate parti

    "Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:%23Bsj3uoeHHA.5044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >> 2. Every time I hear about someone who uses his partitioning scheme to
    >> protect his data against *anything*, I assume that he uses that
    >> partitioning scheme instead of a thorough backup scheme. If that's the
    >> case, you are kidding yourself. The *only* real protection for your data
    >> is backup.

    >
    > I use a separate partition so I can clean install an OS every few months
    > without touching my emails (yes I have the message store on a separate
    > partition) documents or other program data. On machines where I have
    > a second hard drive, I use that instead of a separate logical partition.
    >
    > Tom Lake
    >


    When you do a reinstall of Vista, it bundles up your "old" files and moves
    them out of harms way before it installs. And no, it does not leave any
    residue of the old system.
    I used to keep my data on another drive for safety reasons, but after using
    Vista, several beta's and RC's and going through the reinstallation process
    quite a few times, I'm very confident that my data is secure, residing in
    the system partition.
    That being said, as Ken said, nothing beats a regular backup routine.




      My System SpecsSystem Spec


Vista 64 Ultimate, Should Program Files be moved to seperate parti
Similar Threads
Thread Forum
Program closes abruptly when mouse is moved in save as dialogue wi Vista General
Program Files and Setting in Upgrade to Vista Ultimate Vista installation & setup
Dual Boot-Why cant I use the applications installed on other parti Vista General
Newbie trying to change permissions on files in seperate directori PowerShell
moved program Vista General