Need help "rebuilding" my Acer 8204

I don't understand why so many of you want to merge partitions!?! HD partitioning is good and useful thing - having one big messy partition is completely sensless to me! Could any of you explain me your reasons?

Personally, I find absolutely no use for partitioning - it is just a holdover from the days when media capacity exceeded file format capacity, so you'd create multiple logical partitions on a disk because that was the only way the operating system could "see" the whole disk.

The data is still "one big messy" drive, partitioning doesn't prevent fragmentation or somehow make your data any more organised than you could already manage with folders. Folders have the advantage that they don't commit you to a certain distribution of space, though. Unless you use third-party tools, partitions do because their size cannot easily be changed without first discarding their contents.

Actually, there are still several advantages to multiple partitions. I won't go into them all; but to start, having a system parition you can wipe at any time while keeping your data safe in another partition is a big one for me.

My 8204's HD is about to bite the big one. I called ACER today and a new one is on the way. I'll be rebuilding some time next week. I'm not using the restore disks, I'll be making a custom build DVD that has my drivers pre-loaded and all the crap in XP I don't want removed.

This is totally untrue... It seems like you don't know the difference between folders and partitions! There are propably hundreds of reasons why your drive should be partitioned, but I'm gonna list only a few: - having separate system partition allows you to reinstall OS quickly and painlessly without loosing any data from different partitions - the most of viruses attack only C:, so your data is more secure on different partition - defragmentation is quicker, because of smaller drives and because fragmentation affects only smaller (usually data) part of your disk. Of course you should be aware where all your data (including various temporary files) is written - having more partitions allows you to have more than one OS installed and some of those systems require different files system also, so you should consider having eg. FAT32 on common "data" partition/partitions - having swap file on seperate partition, formatting it in FAT16 and placing on fastest part of your hd will boost performance (unless you have 2GB of RAM and actually no need for swap file ) - having small (system only) partition allows Windows to load faster - some software (eg. Adobe) work much better if it's installed on non system partition I'm not trying to say that Acer's partitioning is great, but it's certainly better than having no partitions at all!

First of all, I should note before replying to both of you that I have been self employed for 6-7 years. I use my computers for work *and* pleasure, all day long and almost every day of the year. I probably average somewhere around nine hours or more a day on each machine I own. On the earlier machines, my wife used them too, taking the usage up even higher. On the last round of upgrades (caused by my notebook having to go back to eMachines for a week for warranty repair of a manufacturing defect), I actually upgraded sooner than normal, only about 6-8 months after buying the previous machine. At that point since I had *two* fairly up to date machines, my wife started using the older one herself, for maybe 3-4 hours a day most days.

Hence, my notebooks get used a *lot*, and because of the nature of my job / our usage, those laptops are online almost all of that time.


Speaking personally, I've only twice ever needed to reinstall my system partition without needing to replace the hard drive or the entire machine at the same time.

Dell Dimension XPS-T500
Compaq Presario 1685
NEC Versa TXi
eMachines M6807
Gateway 7405GX

That's five machines in the last six years, and maybe twice (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say I might have forgotten one - call it three times) that I've needed to reinstall other than when getting a new machine. One wipe every nine months, and maybe one wipe every two years where I wouldn't have had to transfer all of my data over to a new drive anyway. Making my life more awkward the rest of the time is not worth it to me to save a small amount of effort once every couple of years.

If you regularly reinstall your machine (which I might understand if you use it to test beta software a lot, or maybe for gaming) then it might be worth the inconveniences partitioning brings, but for my needs, it isn't.


Good grief, I'd be horrified to have a hard drive die on a laptop that presumably isn't even six months old. Only once have I *ever* (touch wood) had a hard disk die, and that was when my NEC Versa TXi got dropped on the floor accidentally, smashing a hole in the corner of the case.

(Incidentally, don't buy NEC laptops - the thing only weighed under three pounds, and fell three feet onto carpet and the supposedly magnesium alloy chassis cracked like an egg shell. It also took them almost eight months to replace a faulty DVD drive that was dead the day I received the machine, despite dozens of phone calls and letters from me. The battery life was appalling, nowhere near what was claimed, and the finish of the "magnesium alloy" body started to degrade in a matter of a few weeks, ending up with paint peeling off, and flakes of what appeared to be some kind of filler to smooth out flaws in the alloy parts of the body falling out, leaving a pitted and scarred surface to the palm rest, and the front of the laptop.)


See above. I've needed to do this twice in six+ years, without needing to replace the entire drive / machine. Hardly worthy of adding inconvenience the rest of the time.


Complete and utter rubbish, and you should have a proper system of anti-virus, trojan and spyware protection on your machine in the first place. I've not had a virus since the Stoned-B virus of (from what I remember) the start of the 90s.


Again, demonstrably not true. Check the user guides of the defrag products - they generally say themselves that the less space remaining on the drive / partition, the slower the defrag will be. Plus, my system places seldom changed / accessed files first to prevent fragmentation (which has the same effect you think you're getting by partitioning, but more so), and does a quick defrag on itself on a nightly basis, with a fuller defrag once a week. My files never get very fragmented in the first place.


That is the *one* reason so far that is convincing, if you actually need multiple OSes - and very few people actually do.


Yes, but that's not how these hard disks come partitioned, is it? So it is hardly a valid reason to question why others would want to undo the manufacturer partitions. Mind you, nor are most of the reasons in these two posts.


How so? Detailed explanation, please. I'd argue Windows loads just as fast when you use a decent defragmenter that places commonly accessed files together.


What software? I've yet to use any software that it made a difference, under Windows, where it was installed.


It is better for *Acer*, for technical support reasons. It *might* be better for non-technical users. For most others, it is no better, and potentially worse.

kythoon, you certainly DON'T need to buy a new windows XP CD. Look for the DaveLessnau thread, it has info on building your own WinXP CD from the stuff that's already on your HD (or recovery CDs.

Maybe the Terabyte Unlimited tools (trial) http://www.bootitng.com/ give you the same opportunities as PM or Acronis DD.

Restore?
As long as your Recovery partition and the originalAcer MBR are there you can run a restore. Restoring from DVD only may require adjusting the MBR first. There is a tool mbrwrdos and and MBR file somewhere on the DVD, soyou can do this.
Personally I would consider a backup tool (Ghost/Acronis/from terabyte/or others) to backup the recovery partition inclding MBR before cleaning the disk.

As for partitioning?
I prefer disaggregation of system and data, which has it's advantages for my work, in terms of backups. I have a few different windows installs (e.g. one including the whole MSSQL shebang), which I prefer to swap in and out from stored images instead of doing installs (including the bl***y updating) and un-installs. setting back a system partition image takes only about 10 minutes.
But like most preferences they are just that, preferences.
The jaad75 and gweilo8888 shows beutifully that you have to apply your onw judgement based on contradictory information.

HTH

Drio

jaad75 intriguing quote
- having swap file on seperate partition, formatting it in FAT16 and placing on fastest part of your hd will boost performance (unless you have 2GB of RAM and actually no need for swap file )

You mean I don't have to worry about swap with 2Gb RAM? Or evenstronger that windows doesn't swap at all with this amount of RAM? I'll have to check this!
I agree I barely use the full RAM (but I am really happy with it for some database related tasks)

Any input welcome?

Cheers

Drio

Ok. I've been using computers sice circa 1983, PCs since 1992... I'm propably spending 12 to 15h a day using a computer, since a year or so... 9h at work, another 3-6h at home... Are you tryin' to outbid me with your experience? Since I have 8204 (3 months) I had to reinstall the system 4(!) times. I had to this only 2-3 times with previous notebooks I owned (3 since 1997), but I had to reinstall the system dozens of times on people's machines... It's REALLY helpfull if they have at least a data partition... I've seen too many system crashes to be so carefree. Believe me, I always have antivirus, antispyware and firewall enabled - but you can never be sure enough. I cought my last virus 2 days ago... Mine also. "Smaller drives" doesn't mean too small to be properly defragmented! You can place eg. all temporary folders to one partition and regular data on another and defragment it more often and much faster than you would do with one big partition. All "regular" partitions are less fragmented then, 'cause all temporary "trashes" are saved on special part of the drive. I cannot give you hard numbers, but that's what I've read. It sounds logically to me - smaller NTFS system partitions (something like 4GB) are read faster because of smaller MFT size... Read eg. Photoshop installation guide. Some say the same thing about Steinberg's Nuendo or Cubase. I guess, there is a lot of other software. Of course the best thing would be to install it on separate hard drive... It is better for all (though I've seen post like "help me, my hd is only 60GB, but it should be 120GB, why???") and more advanced users can repartition disk to fit their needs... Could you answer, what are the benefits of having one big partition? Cause I can't see any... I want to be enlightened...

No, nor was I even suggesting what my experience was - I was just suggesting the extent to which the computer is used (and deliberately underestimating it, at that).

I've been using computers since 1981 or maybe 1982, starting with a Commodore VIC-20. I've been through literally dozens of different brands / models / platforms owned.

All I was listing was the period during which I've been self-employed and hence using a single computer that I spec and administer completely by myself, for *all* of my work (as opposed to using my own machine at home, and work providing me with desktops / notebooks that they administer partly or completely).


So many system crashes suggests to me that something is being installed incorrectly in the first place, there's not a proper system in place for preventing virus / trojan / spyware issues, or that you're using problematic and unstable drivers, software and hardware (or perhaps overclocking it too far).


That again implies to me that you're not doing things correctly. Yes, antivirus / antispyware / etc. software is only part of the solution. The other part is to ensure that your machine is properly patched, securely configured, placed behind a *hardware* firewall, and used by somebody who knows how to avoid getting infected in the first place.

As I say, I am a prime target for infection because my machines are online and in active use for most of the day, year round - and I work for a major website as well (Alexa regularly ranks us in the top 5,000 sites on the Internet, and we've been as high as the top 2,000 sites in the last six months). Hence I'm on just about every spam mailing list in existance (or at least it seems that way), and receive a large volume (thousands) of spams and virused emails a day.

Yet, as I say, I've not had a virus infection in (touch wood) well over ten years, despite all this.


I didn't say too small to be "properly" defragmented, I said too small to be *efficiently* defragmented. The less free space there is on a partition, the longer it takes to defragment - even if the actual fragmentation is slight. Simple fact.


I would hazard a guess you're talking about tiny differences here - not enough to be worth caring about for most users. If you can show me more specific info I'll be interested.


I think you're misunderstanding Photoshop's instructions. They recommend installation with the scratch disk on a separate *physical* drive or a RAID 0 array for performance reasons. Installing Photoshop on a separate partition is going to make zero difference.

However, plenty of programs - particularly shareware programs - get freaked out by being installed anywhere *other* than C:\\Program Files\\ because their authors never think to test them elsewhere.


Ah, Jaad - will you *ever* understand that your opinion is not the only correct one, never has been, and never will be?

Multiple partitions might be best for you. It is certainly best for *some* people. It is equally certainly NOT "better for all".


* Less complexity of setup
* Less problems with programs not liking being installed on drives other than C:
* No need to keep adjusting partition sizes when you find your existing partitioning is not acceptable to you any more
* Less risk since changing partition sizes - particularly on NTFS - is a risky proposition
* Less wasted space on partitions that you had to make larger than you expected, just in *case* you need that space later on
* Easier, quicker defragmentation

Those are just a handful of reasons, there are sure to be others for other users.

I understand that my opinion is not the only correct one in the world, but rather the only correct one for *me*. Will you ever understand that?

I've read that with 2GB of RAM you can try to turn the swapping off, but I've never tried it personally. Reading 2-3GB swapfile will slow your system for sure, even with the fastest HD, so it sounds better to turn it off and set Windows to unload some unused .DLLs faster... However, I've heard some programs could have some problems if you try to lunch them without paging enabled.

Can someone summarise this as "the pros and cons of partitioning?" and make it sticky. Only the strictly "on the ball" arguments please.
I am serious! This is probably the best exchange to illustrate that people should make up their own mind based on their needs (whihc may include Acer support needs, if they need support).

However, back to Kythoon:
What's the actual need for "reformatting" (including repartitioning). In my not so humble opinion a lot of problems mentioned elsewhere on the forums (including some I cause for myself initially) are caused by partly dodgy "fresh installs" (bleutooth/wireless/DVD). Just my "not so humble" opinion of course.

Cheers

Drio

Seriously, I don't care how long you've been a user. This is my profession and my hobby. I know this stuff inside and out.

I'm at the office now, but I'll try to put together a list of the pros of partitioning later. Can't think of any cons off the top of my head.

Translation: I believe it is right for me, ergo it must be right for everybody. Guess what? Computers are my profession and hobby, too. I also know this stuff inside and out.

Difference is, I can clearly state that no solution is perfect for everybody. You presumably can't.

Oh, and if you'd actually read the thread, you'd see I already listed some cons.

Time for the pub/bar/cafe guys (or girls).

The story is fairly easy. Most pros and cons seem nearly interchangable. So is just particuar circumstances and indeed preferences (the feel good factor).

Have a nice weekend you all

Cheers

Drio

Swapfile

Hi,
I will post my experience with partitioning, hoping it will help whoever agrees with it and ALSO hoping that those who disagree with it won't reply and insult me or my feeble knowledge of the subject. Please don't argue because I won't reply.
In my experience, placing the swapfile on a second hard drive's partition helps increase the speed and performance of my desktop. On my laptop, using the RAM as the pagefile also helps increase the speed of applications and boot process. However, because of the limited amount of RAM, running many applications that altogether require more RAM than is available will crash and has crashed my system. On my desktop, with 4GB of RAM, I use no swapfile and it does afford a noticable performance increase. That much is my experience, and can probably be deduced from common sense.
In partitioning, I put my data on a separate partition in the following manner:
1. Partition 1: C drive.
2. Partition 2: Data + Image of C drive.
3. External Clone of the above partitioned hard drive.
I've never lost a piece of data and have never been forced to reinstall everything because of this set up, keep in mind that I often catch viruses and spyware.
Is it safer and more efficient for me to do this than to have everything on a single drive? I think so, but I won't say it, because some one will argue with the point and I would have to waste my time with cyber-disagreements and insults. Would I ever change from this config? Nope. Why not? Because it has worked for me for countless years ( well, really only 5). So take from it what you would, and forgive my arrogance.