Hi!
I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space.
My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows
XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that
last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the
rest 22 GB?

There is no real loss involved, it's simply how the capacity is being measured,
using either the binary system or the decimal system.

The capacity of your drive, rated at 320 GB in decimal measure, will be shown as
298 GB in binary measure. Either way, it still contains approximately
320,000,000,000 bytes of storage space

Read this FAQ for details:

"Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity than the indicated
size on the drive label?"
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc....PSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ

"T5" <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com...
> Hi!
> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space.
> My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows
> XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that
> last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the
> rest 22 GB?
>

In news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com,
T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem
> with my HD space.
> My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it
> using Windows
> XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The
> problem is that
> last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40
> GB. Where is the
> rest 22 GB?

A HD labeled 320 GB by the manufacturer actually contains
around 298 GB of hard drive space. Take a look at this article
for more info.

Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity
than the indicated size on the drive label?
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc....i=&p_topview=1

Just out of curiosity, why did you create 8 partitions? Odds
are you're going to be resizing some of those partitions in the
future.

Good luck

Nepatsfan

Hi!
This means Every hard drive in the market don't have actual space which is
written on them?
I have used 8 partitions to categorize different data, i.e Music, Games,
Softwares, Downloads etc on each different drive.


"Nepatsfan" wrote:

> In news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com,
> T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem
> > with my HD space.
> > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it
> > using Windows
> > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The
> > problem is that
> > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40
> > GB. Where is the
> > rest 22 GB?
>
> A HD labeled 320 GB by the manufacturer actually contains
> around 298 GB of hard drive space. Take a look at this article
> for more info.
>
> Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity
> than the indicated size on the drive label?
> http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc....i=&p_topview=1
>
> Just out of curiosity, why did you create 8 partitions? Odds
> are you're going to be resizing some of those partitions in the
> future.
>
> Good luck
>
> Nepatsfan
>
>
>
>

It means that hard drive manufacturers use a decimal method to count. 1000
bytes is a KB, 1000KB is a MB, 1000 MB is a GB and 1000GB is a TB. The
amount of space written on the drive is correct for the way that space is
calculated.

Whereas, software counts them in another way, based upon the underlying
binary system. 1024 byes is a KB, 1024 KB is a MB, etc. As David said, the
actual number of bytes is the same.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"T5" <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:765EB3C1-F142-40F5-B144-B3CE58BF2E65@microsoft.com...
> Hi!
> This means Every hard drive in the market don't have actual space which is
> written on them?
> I have used 8 partitions to categorize different data, i.e Music, Games,
> Softwares, Downloads etc on each different drive.
>
>
> "Nepatsfan" wrote:
>
>> In news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com,
>> T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem
>> > with my HD space.
>> > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it
>> > using Windows
>> > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The
>> > problem is that
>> > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40
>> > GB. Where is the
>> > rest 22 GB?
>>
>> A HD labeled 320 GB by the manufacturer actually contains
>> around 298 GB of hard drive space. Take a look at this article
>> for more info.
>>
>> Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity
>> than the indicated size on the drive label?
>> http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc....i=&p_topview=1
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why did you create 8 partitions? Odds
>> are you're going to be resizing some of those partitions in the
>> future.
>>
>> Good luck
>>
>> Nepatsfan
>>
>>
>>
>>

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:


> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space.
> My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows
> XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that
> last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the
> rest 22 GB?



There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You
have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB
drive.

All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while
the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to
the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is
actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official
international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not
1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB
is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the
decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing.

But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB
drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like
enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that
is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what
you plan to use each of the eight partitions for.

Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best
off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and
applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a
needless complication, and makes things worse, not better.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Answered inline.

In news:765EB3C1-F142-40F5-B144-B3CE58BF2E65@microsoft.com,
T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> This means Every hard drive in the market don't have actual
> space which is
> written on them?

That's right. On a side note, WD settled a class action lawsuit
last year over this very issue.

Western Digital settles hard-drive capacity lawsuit
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsSt...px?story=34245

> I have used 8 partitions to categorize different data, i.e
> Music, Games,
> Softwares, Downloads etc on each different drive.
>

You certainly are free to set up your hard drive as you see
fit. That said, it's been my experience that two partition are
more than enough. The first contains the OS and installed
programs, the second contains data segregated into individual
folders.

You might want to add this web site to your Favorites. You can
download a 30 day trial version of BootIT NG when you have to
resize your partitions. It may not happen for some time, but
sooner or later one of those partitions will be full.

BootIT Next Generation
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html

Good luck

Nepatsfan

>
> "Nepatsfan" wrote:
>
>> In news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com,
>> T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem
>>> with my HD space.
>>> My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned
>>> it
>>> using Windows
>>> XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The
>>> problem is that
>>> last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40
>>> GB. Where is the
>>> rest 22 GB?
>>
>> A HD labeled 320 GB by the manufacturer actually contains
>> around 298 GB of hard drive space. Take a look at this
>> article
>> for more info.
>>
>> Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity
>> than the indicated size on the drive label?
>> http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc....i=&p_topview=1
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why did you create 8 partitions? Odds
>> are you're going to be resizing some of those partitions in
>> the
>> future.
>>
>> Good luck
>>
>> Nepatsfan

I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me in
the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old
computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better for
larger hard drives!.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space.
> > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows
> > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that
> > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the
> > rest 22 GB?
>
>
>
> There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You
> have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB
> drive.
>
> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while
> the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to
> the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is
> actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official
> international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not
> 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB
> is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the
> decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing.
>
> But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB
> drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like
> enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that
> is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what
> you plan to use each of the eight partitions for.
>
> Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best
> off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and
> applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a
> needless complication, and makes things worse, not better.
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

Myself, I usually have a minimum of four partitions. System, TEMP, Data and
Storage (for things like downloaded installers, archives in ZIP format...
Things that I want to keep but seldom access.) When I was the graphic artist
for our business, I had a couple of additional partitions just for that, one
being a working partition and the other being for libraries of images,
fonts, etc.

The reason for keeping Data (user-created files) separate is to make it
easier to reconstruct the system if necessary, without risking loss of
personal data. While the reason for a separate partition for TEMP is to keep
the most volatile files out of the system, that is more an old habit from
Win9x days than one that's seriously useful for WinXP. Otherwise, the
primary reason for separate partitions is simply comply with my sense of
structure. Makes it's easy to, say, transfer all my business files, or my
stash of installers, to another machine.

I depend on BootIt NG to allow me to resize and reorganize my partitions at
will.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"T5" <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A1CF3BA2-3E08-420B-8494-5BBDB1AB7FB0@microsoft.com...
>I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me in
> the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old
> computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better for
> larger hard drives!.
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD
>> > space.
>> > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using
>> > Windows
>> > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is
>> > that
>> > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where
>> > is the
>> > rest 22 GB?
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You
>> have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB
>> drive.
>>
>> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while
>> the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to
>> the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is
>> actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official
>> international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not
>> 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB
>> is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the
>> decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing.
>>
>> But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB
>> drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like
>> enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that
>> is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what
>> you plan to use each of the eight partitions for.
>>
>> Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best
>> off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and
>> applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a
>> needless complication, and makes things worse, not better.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>>

There are two schools of thought on partitioning drives. However, if you
partition drives it is best to have a third party partitioning tool as
from time to time you usually need to resize partitions. Like Gary I
have and use BootIt NG. You find Ken in the opposite camp as he will no
doubt tell you shortly.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T5 wrote:
> I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point
> me in the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in
> my old computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives
> is better for larger hard drives!.
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my
>>> HD space. My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have
>>> paritioned it using Windows XP Installation Setup. I have created
>>> 40 GB each drive. The problem is that last drive shows only 18 GB
>>> of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the rest 22 GB?
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You
>> have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a
>> 320GB drive.
>>
>> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while
>> the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to
>> the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is
>> actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the
>> official international standard defines the "G" of GB as one
>> billion, not 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the
>> binary value of GB is so well established in the computer world that
>> I consider using the decimal value of a billion to be deceptive
>> marketing.
>>
>> But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a
>> 320GB drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It
>> seems like enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision
>> to do that is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please
>> explain what you plan to use each of the eight partitions for.
>>
>> Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best
>> off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and
>> applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a
>> needless complication, and makes things worse, not better.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:32:01 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

> I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me in
> the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old
> computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better for
> larger hard drives!.


No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions
are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want
to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way.

But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly.
How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan
should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and
making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation.
Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever
drive you think of makes no sense.

Here are some general thoughts on how to partition:

I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always
bad to have more than one partition. 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. Note the word "seldom"
rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions.

Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because
they think that separating programs from Windows will let them
reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false,
since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one)
have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere.
So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be
reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition
for programs doesn't work.

Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate
partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it
hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and
forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the
drive.

Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other
partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding
themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all,
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other
kinds of drive failure, severe power glitches, nearby lightning
strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. In my view,
secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the
computer.

Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational
technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders.
The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their
size can only be changed with special third-party software), while
folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet
your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to
organize, in my view.

What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead
of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each
such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition
where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left
on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition.
Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in
*less* organization rather than more.





> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space.
> > > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows
> > > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that
> > > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the
> > > rest 22 GB?
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You
> > have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB
> > drive.
> >
> > All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while
> > the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to
> > the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is
> > actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official
> > international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not
> > 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB
> > is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the
> > decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing.
> >
> > But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB
> > drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like
> > enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that
> > is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what
> > you plan to use each of the eight partitions for.
> >
> > Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best
> > off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and
> > applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a
> > needless complication, and makes things worse, not better.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:19:44 +0100, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:

> There are two schools of thought on partitioning drives. However, if you
> partition drives it is best to have a third party partitioning tool as
> from time to time you usually need to resize partitions. Like Gary I
> have and use BootIt NG. You find Ken in the opposite camp as he will no
> doubt tell you shortly.


LOL! Yes, I'm in the opposite camp. I believe that if you plan
carefully up front, there should be no need to repartition. In fact I
believe that the need to repartition usually comes about as a result
of overpartitioning in the first place.

I've never used BootItNG, since I've never needed to repartition, and
thus never needed to use any third-party partitioning tool. However,
I've heard enough good things about it that if I were looking for such
a tool, that's the one I'd try first.




> T5 wrote:
> > I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point
> > me in the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in
> > my old computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives
> > is better for larger hard drives!.
> >
> > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my
> >>> HD space. My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have
> >>> paritioned it using Windows XP Installation Setup. I have created
> >>> 40 GB each drive. The problem is that last drive shows only 18 GB
> >>> of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the rest 22 GB?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You
> >> have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a
> >> 320GB drive.
> >>
> >> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while
> >> the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to
> >> the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is
> >> actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the
> >> official international standard defines the "G" of GB as one
> >> billion, not 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the
> >> binary value of GB is so well established in the computer world that
> >> I consider using the decimal value of a billion to be deceptive
> >> marketing.
> >>
> >> But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a
> >> 320GB drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It
> >> seems like enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision
> >> to do that is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please
> >> explain what you plan to use each of the eight partitions for.
> >>
> >> Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best
> >> off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and
> >> applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a
> >> needless complication, and makes things worse, not better.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken

The counter argument as you know on separate pagefiles.

How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows
XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/en-us

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:32:01 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please
>> point me in the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4
>> drives in my old computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating
>> more drives is better for larger hard drives!.
>
>
> No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions
> are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want
> to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way.
>
> But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly.
> How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan
> should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and
> making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation.
> Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever
> drive you think of makes no sense.
>
> Here are some general thoughts on how to partition:
>
> I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always
> bad to have more than one partition. 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. Note the word "seldom"
> rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions.
>
> Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because
> they think that separating programs from Windows will let them
> reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false,
> since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one)
> have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere.
> So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be
> reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition
> for programs doesn't work.
>
> Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate
> partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it
> hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and
> forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the
> drive.
>
> Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other
> partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding
> themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all,
> because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
> and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other
> kinds of drive failure, severe power glitches, nearby lightning
> strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. In my view,
> secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the
> computer.
>
> Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational
> technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders.
> The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their
> size can only be changed with special third-party software), while
> folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet
> your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to
> organize, in my view.
>
> What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead
> of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each
> such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition
> where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left
> on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition.
> Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in
> *less* organization rather than more.
>
>
>
>
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5
>>> <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my
>>>> HD space. My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have
>>>> paritioned it using Windows XP Installation Setup. I have created
>>>> 40 GB each drive. The problem is that last drive shows only 18 GB
>>>> of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the rest 22 GB?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You
>>> have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a
>>> 320GB drive.
>>>
>>> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes,
>>> while the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it
>>> as 2 to the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte
>>> drive is actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that
>>> the official international standard defines the "G" of GB as one
>>> billion, not 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the
>>> binary value of GB is so well established in the computer world
>>> that I consider using the decimal value of a billion to be
>>> deceptive marketing.
>>>
>>> But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a
>>> 320GB drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It
>>> seems like enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your
>>> decision to do that is based on misunderstandings of how things
>>> work. Please explain what you plan to use each of the eight
>>> partitions for.
>>>
>>> Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is
>>> best off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and
>>> applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a
>>> needless complication, and makes things worse, not better.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:otrec35p3pfeq3k27kpa2vtude6o6rhi6o@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:32:01 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me
>> in
>> the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old
>> computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better
>> for
>> larger hard drives!.
>
>
> No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions
> are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want
> to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way.
>
> But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly.
> How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan
> should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and
> making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation.
> Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever
> drive you think of makes no sense.
>
> Here are some general thoughts on how to partition:
>
> I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always
> bad to have more than one partition. 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.
>

If the windows partition goes south, and personal data is on that partition,
so goes the personal data. A separate partition for personal data is always
a sound idea. That personal data partition should be backed up as well.

> Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom
> any benefit to having more than two partitions. Note the word "seldom"
> rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions.
>
> Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because
> they think that separating programs from Windows will let them
> reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false,
> since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one)
> have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere.
> So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be
> reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition
> for programs doesn't work.
>

Couldn't agree more.

> Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate
> partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it
> hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and
> forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the
> drive.
>

One exception I've found. On another physical hard drive connected to
another bus system that isn't so picky about interruptions. Front load that
swapfile partition to that hard drive, and should be at least as fast as the
hard drive where windows is loaded. Example - window partition on ide,
swapfile on scsi. Other methods are a waste of time, perhaps in the end,
slow the system down.

> Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other
> partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding
> themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all,
> because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
> and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other
> kinds of drive failure, severe power glitches, nearby lightning
> strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. In my view,
> secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the
> computer.
>

An onboard partition for storing partition images is for quick recovery.
Much like factory hidden partition for recovery. And, another location for
sourcing images. External location of partition images is always needed in
event of hard drive failure.

Similar with cloning an entire hard drive. An entire clone of a normally
used hard drive to an onboard one is okay if there is no power glitch that
kills both, and, the cloned partitions are all hidden. A clone, normally
kept out of the PC, is the best. One can do both if one can afford the
extra hard drive, and the extra time for cloning.

> Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational
> technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders.
> The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their
> size can only be changed with special third-party software), while
> folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet
> your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to
> organize, in my view.
>

Folders are part of one partition. If the partition goes south, so do the
folders. If kept on the OS partition, and NTFS, the average user could have
a problem for recovery depending on what went wrong.

Usable file space should not be a problem for most people. Underestimating
that use is common though. Whether its 3rd party software, pictures,
videos, and so forth; its common.

Overestimating needed available file space is not that common. Not
anticipating enough usable file space while using a PC in a day to day basis
is usually seen, but ignored until its a problem.

> What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead
> of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each
> such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition
> where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left
> on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition.
> Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in
> *less* organization rather than more.
>

You're right. This takes experience to get it right with partitions for an
intended purpose. So does selecting the hard drive with amount of capacity
needed to accomodate that. Even if its just one partition with many
personal folders and subfolders.

I can't see using seven 40GB partitions and one smaller partition to any
substantial separate use without overflow on perhaps one or two, or, only
see superfluous use of a couple at the very least. As far as the way I use
a PC anyway. And well beyond overall hard drive capacity that I need. A
person that makes such a mistake should stick with one partition, and an
offboard clone. Or, make a plan for more genuine use of a more limited
number of partitions and their sizes. Have 3rd party partitioning software
(bootable) available if needed for resizing. Not recommended if one can't
plan it to any degree of accuracy as partition resizing should be kept to a
minimum.
Dave

>
>
>
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD
>> > > space.
>> > > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using
>> > > Windows
>> > > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem
>> > > is that
>> > > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where
>> > > is the
>> > > rest 22 GB?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You
>> > have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB
>> > drive.
>> >
>> > All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while
>> > the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to
>> > the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is
>> > actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official
>> > international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not
>> > 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB
>> > is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the
>> > decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing.
>> >
>> > But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB
>> > drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like
>> > enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that
>> > is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what
>> > you plan to use each of the eight partitions for.
>> >
>> > Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best
>> > off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and
>> > applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a
>> > needless complication, and makes things worse, not better.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>> >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:%23CKJMum4HHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:otrec35p3pfeq3k27kpa2vtude6o6rhi6o@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:32:01 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me
>>> in
>>> the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old
>>> computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better
>>> for
>>> larger hard drives!.
>>
>>
>> No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions
>> are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want
>> to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way.
>>
>> But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly.
>> How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan
>> should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and
>> making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation.
>> Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever
>> drive you think of makes no sense.
>>
>> Here are some general thoughts on how to partition:
>>
>> I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always
>> bad to have more than one partition. 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.
>>
>
> If the windows partition goes south, and personal data is on that
> partition, so goes the personal data. A separate partition for personal
> data is always a sound idea. That personal data partition should be
> backed up as well.


I'll have to comment here. In the majority of failures I've been called on
in the last few years, partitioning was not a factor as the drive itself
failed, usually electrically.

All partitions on those drives were equally inaccessible. Any further
access to the data required engaging the services of a data recovery
specialist with a clean room and the gear to disassemble the drive and
attach the platters.

The only way to work around this is to increase the number of points of
failure - use more physical disks, including disks that aren't physically
attached to that system. And, back up to more than one removable disk.

I have found this kind of failure to be common enough to concude that, in
terms of system reliablilty, partitioning one drive may only provide a
false sense of security.

HTH
-pk

<snippage>