Terry R. wrote:
> The date and time was Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:50:06 PM, and on a
> whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> In news:EC4B7C5E-FFCC-47D3-A1D3-0BF7CC2E70F1@microsoft.com,
>>> sgopus typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:02:16 -0800:
>>>
>>>> Whats to disagree with?
>>>> in essence you said the same thing as travel, (Give yourself enough
>>>> room for growth), with the costs of hd's being so cheap these days,
>>>> why limit your growth,
>>>> buy a big enough drive to allow for all future possibilities of
>>>> growth, I'd say 20Gig is min, and 40 would be better, but each to his
>>>> own.
>>>>
>>>> "BillW50" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In news:%23EELGMPcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>> LVTravel typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:09:02 -0800:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Chuck" <Chuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:7BE96304-8FC2-4FEC-9918-D1DD0979284E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi again, All.
>>>>>>> I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my understanding
>>>>>>> that as part of the process, I will be able to repartition the HDD.
>>>>>>> My question is,
>>>>>>> how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I would like
>>>>>>> to install XP on its own partition so that if I have to
>>>>>>> re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>> I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and programs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>> Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs in
>>>>>> another, if you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall all of your
>>>>>> programs. The reason is that the registry is held in the XP
>>>>>> partition and almost all programs install data in the registry.
>>>>>> Your idea is good in that you want to keep your data separate but
>>>>>> don't try it with the programs.
>>>>>> Another issue with programs is that they like to save data more and
>>>>>> more where they like to by default. You need to change your user
>>>>>> defaults to the data drive also (Documents and Settings, Temp file
>>>>>> settings, etc.) If you don't you will find that the size of the XP
>>>>>> drive will continue to grow with orphaned temp and data files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depending on the size of your entire drive I would recommend at
>>>>>> least 40 GB minimum (even though you can get by with less depending
>>>>>> on what programs you have to install and the amount of hard drive
>>>>>> space required for the virtual memory, 1 1/2 times size of your
>>>>>> system memory.) I have one system that was shipped with a 100 GB
>>>>>> drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have installed or moved
>>>>>> all data and temps to the larger partition but have also had to
>>>>>> enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for installation of
>>>>>> programs and still have a little breathing room.
>>>>> As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I disagree with
>>>>> LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP SP2 needs 2.7GB just for
>>>>> itself. Now you need to add pagefile and hibernation files. Plus you
>>>>> need room for applications. This depends on you. If you only need
>>>>> like 12 or so applications, this is easy to figure out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD netbooks, I can tell you that 4GB
>>>>> is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course, but 8GB is
>>>>> plenty of room for me. As for data, well that can be saved and
>>>>> stored on something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete backups on
>>>>> occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the OS and all of the
>>>>> applications either.
>>>
>>> You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old as 8 inch
>>> floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old if you want too,
>>> but
>>> some of us are really for the future. You can join now, or later. The
>>> choice
>>> is up to you.
>>
>> If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4 or 8GB
>> drives you can rest assured that there will not be many takers! For
>> almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB drive for a
>> Windows XP installation is almost certainly absurdly too small! I
>> wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything smaller than 15GB.
>>
>> John
>
> 32/64 gig drives are readily available. Larger than that isn't cost
> effective yet IMO.

1) How much does a 32 GB SSD cost?
2) Isn't there a limit on the max number of SSD write or access cycles?

I mean, I think it was as high as 100,000 (or so), but since there are
hundreds of write or disk access cycles going on to a HD every day
(including behind the scenes), then at that rate, 100,000 / 100 = 1000 days,
or 3 years.

In news:%23pUoYKUcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
Bill in Co. typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:38:35 -0700:
> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:50:06 PM, and on
>> a whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:EC4B7C5E-FFCC-47D3-A1D3-0BF7CC2E70F1@microsoft.com,
>>>> sgopus typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:02:16 -0800:
>>>>
>>>>> Whats to disagree with?
>>>>> in essence you said the same thing as travel, (Give yourself
>>>>> enough room for growth), with the costs of hd's being so cheap
>>>>> these days, why limit your growth,
>>>>> buy a big enough drive to allow for all future possibilities of
>>>>> growth, I'd say 20Gig is min, and 40 would be better, but each to
>>>>> his own.
>>>>>
>>>>> "BillW50" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:%23EELGMPcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>> LVTravel typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:09:02 -0800:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Chuck" <Chuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:7BE96304-8FC2-4FEC-9918-D1DD0979284E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>> I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>> understanding that as part of the process, I will be able to
>>>>>>>> repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>> how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I would
>>>>>>>> like to install XP on its own partition so that if I have to
>>>>>>>> re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>> I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
>>>>>>>> programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>> Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs in
>>>>>>> another, if you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall all of
>>>>>>> your programs. The reason is that the registry is held in the
>>>>>>> XP partition and almost all programs install data in the
>>>>>>> registry. Your idea is good in that you want to keep your data
>>>>>>> separate but don't try it with the programs.
>>>>>>> Another issue with programs is that they like to save data more
>>>>>>> and more where they like to by default. You need to change
>>>>>>> your user defaults to the data drive also (Documents and
>>>>>>> Settings, Temp file settings, etc.) If you don't you will
>>>>>>> find that the size of the XP drive will continue to grow with
>>>>>>> orphaned temp and data files. Depending on the size of your entire
>>>>>>> drive I would recommend at
>>>>>>> least 40 GB minimum (even though you can get by with less
>>>>>>> depending on what programs you have to install and the amount
>>>>>>> of hard drive space required for the virtual memory, 1 1/2
>>>>>>> times size of your system memory.) I have one system that was
>>>>>>> shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have
>>>>>>> installed or moved all data and temps to the larger
>>>>>>> partition but have also had to enlarge the OS partition to 40
>>>>>>> GB to allow for installation of programs and still have a
>>>>>>> little breathing room.
>>>>>> As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I disagree
>>>>>> with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP SP2 needs 2.7GB
>>>>>> just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile and hibernation
>>>>>> files. Plus you need room for applications. This depends on you.
>>>>>> If you only need like 12 or so applications, this is easy to
>>>>>> figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD netbooks, I can tell you
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> 4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course, but 8GB
>>>>>> is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that can be saved and
>>>>>> stored on something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
>>>>>> backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the OS
>>>>>> and all of the applications either.
>>>>
>>>> You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old as
>>>> 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old if you
>>>> want too, but
>>>> some of us are really for the future. You can join now, or later.
>>>> The choice
>>>> is up to you.
>>>
>>> If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4 or
>>> 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be many takers!
>>> For almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB
>>> drive for a Windows XP installation is almost certainly absurdly
>>> too small! I wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything
>>> smaller than 15GB. John
>>
>> 32/64 gig drives are readily available. Larger than that isn't cost
>> effective yet IMO.
>
> 1) How much does a 32 GB SSD cost?
> 2) Isn't there a limit on the max number of SSD write or access
> cycles?
> I mean, I think it was as high as 100,000 (or so), but since there are
> hundreds of write or disk access cycles going on to a HD every day
> (including behind the scenes), then at that rate, 100,000 / 100 =
> 1000 days, or 3 years.

No MTBF is 228 years.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

In news:%23%23L5IHUcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:33:01 -0400:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> In news:e1QnN4TcJHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
>> John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:06:17 -0400:
>>
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In news:OKkMRiTcJHA.1860@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:27:01 -0400:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:O8W5oNTcJHA.1328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:50:06 -0400:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In news:EC4B7C5E-FFCC-47D3-A1D3-0BF7CC2E70F1@microsoft.com,
>>>>>>>> sgopus typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:02:16 -0800:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whats to disagree with?
>>>>>>>>> in essence you said the same thing as travel, (Give yourself
>>>>>>>>> enough room for growth), with the costs of hd's being so cheap
>>>>>>>>> these days, why limit your growth,
>>>>>>>>> buy a big enough drive to allow for all future possibilities
>>>>>>>>> of growth, I'd say 20Gig is min, and 40 would be better, but
>>>>>>>>> each to his own.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "BillW50" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In news:%23EELGMPcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>> LVTravel typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:09:02 -0800:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Chuck" <Chuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:7BE96304-8FC2-4FEC-9918-D1DD0979284E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding that as part of the process, I will be able
>>>>>>>>>>>> to repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>>>>>> how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to install XP on its own partition so that if I
>>>>>>>>>>>> have to re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
>>>>>>>>>>>> programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs
>>>>>>>>>>> in another, if you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall
>>>>>>>>>>> all of your programs. The reason is that the registry is
>>>>>>>>>>> held in the XP partition and almost all programs install
>>>>>>>>>>> data in the registry. Your idea is good in that you want to
>>>>>>>>>>> keep your data separate but don't try it with the programs.
>>>>>>>>>>> Another issue with programs is that they like to save data
>>>>>>>>>>> more and more where they like to by default. You need to
>>>>>>>>>>> change your user defaults to the data drive also (Documents
>>>>>>>>>>> and Settings, Temp file settings, etc.) If you don't you
>>>>>>>>>>> will find that the size of the XP drive will continue to
>>>>>>>>>>> grow with orphaned temp and data files. Depending on the
>>>>>>>>>>> size of your entire drive I would recommend at
>>>>>>>>>>> least 40 GB minimum (even though you can get by with less
>>>>>>>>>>> depending on what programs you have to install and the
>>>>>>>>>>> amount of hard drive space required for the virtual memory,
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 1/2 times size of your system memory.) I have one system
>>>>>>>>>>> that was shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB
>>>>>>>>>>> partitions. Have installed or moved all data and temps to
>>>>>>>>>>> the larger partition but have also had to enlarge the OS
>>>>>>>>>>> partition to 40 GB to allow for installation of programs and
>>>>>>>>>>> still have a little breathing room.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I disagree
>>>>>>>>>> with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP SP2 needs
>>>>>>>>>> 2.7GB just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile and
>>>>>>>>>> hibernation files. Plus you need room for applications. This
>>>>>>>>>> depends on you. If you only need like 12 or so applications, this
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> easy to figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD
>>>>>>>>>> netbooks, I can tell you that
>>>>>>>>>> 4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course, but
>>>>>>>>>> 8GB is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that can be
>>>>>>>>>> saved and stored on something else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
>>>>>>>>>> backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the OS
>>>>>>>>>> and all of the applications either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old
>>>>>>>> as 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old
>>>>>>>> if you want too, but some of us are really for the future. You
>>>>>>>> can join now, or later. The choice is up to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4
>>>>>>> or 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be many
>>>>>>> takers! For almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or
>>>>>>> even 8GB drive for a Windows XP installation is almost certainly
>>>>>>> absurdly too small! I wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on
>>>>>>> anything smaller than 15GB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is fine John! That just tells us that people like you have
>>>>>> no clue how to do so. That is okay though, only the really
>>>>>> intelligent people know how to do so right now. And if I had to
>>>>>> trust my life on somebody, I would trust somebody who knows how
>>>>>> vs. somebody that doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh please, Bill! Any idiot can install Windows XP on a small 4GB
>>>>> drive, it can be installed on a way smaller drive than that if you
>>>>> really have no other choice, don't think that we have never seen
>>>>> Eee PCs! On a desktop installing Windows XP on such a small
>>>>> drive will make it next to impossible to properly service the
>>>>> installation, it will be a constant battle to try to keep the
>>>>> installation within bounds. Any idiot can install Windows XP on
>>>>> a 4GB drive but unless a person has no other choice and if there
>>>>> is more available drive space than 4GB only an idiot would chose
>>>>> to install on such a small drive!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really John? No only intelligent people can keep a Windows XP
>>>> install with updates on a 4GB system and do what others are doing
>>>> with lots more. The dummies of course can't do so. Thus if you hear
>>>> of somebody who can, you know they are smarter than you.
>>>
>>> Suit yourself, Bill. Windows XP can be installed on as little as a
>>> 1.5GB drive if that is what you want. Being "able" or "needing" to
>>> do it and wanting to do it are different things. I don't know
>>> anyone in their *right* mind who would want to bother with this
>>> kind of a setup if they can at all avoid it, but do as you please.
>>
>>
>> That is okay John! If I had a class of very smart people, this would
>> be a test. I understand that many would fail, but that is okay.
>> Because not everybody can be smart. ;)
>
> Obviously, you're the perfect example of that.

Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:%23pUoYKUcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
> Bill in Co. typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:38:35 -0700:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> The date and time was Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:50:06 PM, and on
>>> a whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In news:EC4B7C5E-FFCC-47D3-A1D3-0BF7CC2E70F1@microsoft.com,
>>>>> sgopus typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:02:16 -0800:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whats to disagree with?
>>>>>> in essence you said the same thing as travel, (Give yourself
>>>>>> enough room for growth), with the costs of hd's being so cheap
>>>>>> these days, why limit your growth,
>>>>>> buy a big enough drive to allow for all future possibilities of
>>>>>> growth, I'd say 20Gig is min, and 40 would be better, but each to
>>>>>> his own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "BillW50" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In news:%23EELGMPcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>> LVTravel typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:09:02 -0800:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Chuck" <Chuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:7BE96304-8FC2-4FEC-9918-D1DD0979284E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>>> I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>>> understanding that as part of the process, I will be able to
>>>>>>>>> repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>>> how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I would
>>>>>>>>> like to install XP on its own partition so that if I have to
>>>>>>>>> re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>>> I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
>>>>>>>>> programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>> Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs in
>>>>>>>> another, if you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall all of
>>>>>>>> your programs. The reason is that the registry is held in the
>>>>>>>> XP partition and almost all programs install data in the
>>>>>>>> registry. Your idea is good in that you want to keep your data
>>>>>>>> separate but don't try it with the programs.
>>>>>>>> Another issue with programs is that they like to save data more
>>>>>>>> and more where they like to by default. You need to change
>>>>>>>> your user defaults to the data drive also (Documents and
>>>>>>>> Settings, Temp file settings, etc.) If you don't you will
>>>>>>>> find that the size of the XP drive will continue to grow with
>>>>>>>> orphaned temp and data files. Depending on the size of your entire
>>>>>>>> drive I would recommend at
>>>>>>>> least 40 GB minimum (even though you can get by with less
>>>>>>>> depending on what programs you have to install and the amount
>>>>>>>> of hard drive space required for the virtual memory, 1 1/2
>>>>>>>> times size of your system memory.) I have one system that was
>>>>>>>> shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have
>>>>>>>> installed or moved all data and temps to the larger
>>>>>>>> partition but have also had to enlarge the OS partition to 40
>>>>>>>> GB to allow for installation of programs and still have a
>>>>>>>> little breathing room.
>>>>>>> As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I disagree
>>>>>>> with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP SP2 needs 2.7GB
>>>>>>> just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile and hibernation
>>>>>>> files. Plus you need room for applications. This depends on you.
>>>>>>> If you only need like 12 or so applications, this is easy to
>>>>>>> figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD netbooks, I can tell
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> 4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course, but 8GB
>>>>>>> is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that can be saved and
>>>>>>> stored on something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
>>>>>>> backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the OS
>>>>>>> and all of the applications either.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old as
>>>>> 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old if you
>>>>> want too, but
>>>>> some of us are really for the future. You can join now, or later.
>>>>> The choice
>>>>> is up to you.
>>>>
>>>> If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4 or
>>>> 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be many takers!
>>>> For almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB
>>>> drive for a Windows XP installation is almost certainly absurdly
>>>> too small! I wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything
>>>> smaller than 15GB. John
>>>
>>> 32/64 gig drives are readily available. Larger than that isn't cost
>>> effective yet IMO.
>>
>> 1) How much does a 32 GB SSD cost?
>> 2) Isn't there a limit on the max number of SSD write or access
>> cycles?
>> I mean, I think it was as high as 100,000 (or so), but since there are
>> hundreds of write or disk access cycles going on to a HD every day
>> (including behind the scenes), then at that rate, 100,000 / 100 =
>> 1000 days, or 3 years.
>
> No MTBF is 228 years.

You're suggesting that there isn't a limited number of write cycles for
SSDs? That's not what I've read. (I'm not talking about just leaving the
device on, and then it can last up to 228 years).

Bill in Co. wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>>In news:%23pUoYKUcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>Bill in Co. typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:38:35 -0700:
>>
>>>Terry R. wrote:
>>>
>>>>The date and time was Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:50:06 PM, and on
>>>>a whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In news:EC4B7C5E-FFCC-47D3-A1D3-0BF7CC2E70F1@microsoft.com,
>>>>>>sgopus typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:02:16 -0800:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Whats to disagree with?
>>>>>>>in essence you said the same thing as travel, (Give yourself
>>>>>>>enough room for growth), with the costs of hd's being so cheap
>>>>>>>these days, why limit your growth,
>>>>>>>buy a big enough drive to allow for all future possibilities of
>>>>>>>growth, I'd say 20Gig is min, and 40 would be better, but each to
>>>>>>>his own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"BillW50" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In news:%23EELGMPcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>LVTravel typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:09:02 -0800:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Chuck" <Chuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:7BE96304-8FC2-4FEC-9918-D1DD0979284E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>>>>I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>>>>understanding that as part of the process, I will be able to
>>>>>>>>>>repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>>>>how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I would
>>>>>>>>>>like to install XP on its own partition so that if I have to
>>>>>>>>>>re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>>>>I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
>>>>>>>>>>programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>Chuck
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs in
>>>>>>>>>another, if you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall all of
>>>>>>>>>your programs. The reason is that the registry is held in the
>>>>>>>>>XP partition and almost all programs install data in the
>>>>>>>>>registry. Your idea is good in that you want to keep your data
>>>>>>>>>separate but don't try it with the programs.
>>>>>>>>>Another issue with programs is that they like to save data more
>>>>>>>>>and more where they like to by default. You need to change
>>>>>>>>>your user defaults to the data drive also (Documents and
>>>>>>>>>Settings, Temp file settings, etc.) If you don't you will
>>>>>>>>>find that the size of the XP drive will continue to grow with
>>>>>>>>>orphaned temp and data files. Depending on the size of your entire
>>>>>>>>>drive I would recommend at
>>>>>>>>>least 40 GB minimum (even though you can get by with less
>>>>>>>>>depending on what programs you have to install and the amount
>>>>>>>>>of hard drive space required for the virtual memory, 1 1/2
>>>>>>>>>times size of your system memory.) I have one system that was
>>>>>>>>>shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have
>>>>>>>>>installed or moved all data and temps to the larger
>>>>>>>>>partition but have also had to enlarge the OS partition to 40
>>>>>>>>>GB to allow for installation of programs and still have a
>>>>>>>>>little breathing room.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I disagree
>>>>>>>>with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP SP2 needs 2.7GB
>>>>>>>>just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile and hibernation
>>>>>>>>files. Plus you need room for applications. This depends on you.
>>>>>>>>If you only need like 12 or so applications, this is easy to
>>>>>>>>figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD netbooks, I can tell
>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course, but 8GB
>>>>>>>>is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that can be saved and
>>>>>>>>stored on something else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
>>>>>>>>backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the OS
>>>>>>>>and all of the applications either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old as
>>>>>>8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old if you
>>>>>>want too, but
>>>>>>some of us are really for the future. You can join now, or later.
>>>>>>The choice
>>>>>>is up to you.
>>>>>
>>>>>If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4 or
>>>>>8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be many takers!
>>>>>For almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB
>>>>>drive for a Windows XP installation is almost certainly absurdly
>>>>>too small! I wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything
>>>>>smaller than 15GB. John
>>>>
>>>>32/64 gig drives are readily available. Larger than that isn't cost
>>>>effective yet IMO.
>>>
>>>1) How much does a 32 GB SSD cost?
>>>2) Isn't there a limit on the max number of SSD write or access
>>>cycles?
>>>I mean, I think it was as high as 100,000 (or so), but since there are
>>>hundreds of write or disk access cycles going on to a HD every day
>>>(including behind the scenes), then at that rate, 100,000 / 100 =
>>>1000 days, or 3 years.
>>
>>No MTBF is 228 years.
>
>
> You're suggesting that there isn't a limited number of write cycles for
> SSDs? That's not what I've read. (I'm not talking about just leaving the
> device on, and then it can last up to 228 years)

You are right and he is wrong.

John

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:12:30 -0400, "John John (MVP)"
<audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>Bill in Co. wrote:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>>In news:%23pUoYKUcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>Bill in Co. typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:38:35 -0700:
>>>
>>>>Terry R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The date and time was Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:50:06 PM, and on
>>>>>a whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In news:EC4B7C5E-FFCC-47D3-A1D3-0BF7CC2E70F1@microsoft.com,
>>>>>>>sgopus typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:02:16 -0800:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Whats to disagree with?
>>>>>>>>in essence you said the same thing as travel, (Give yourself
>>>>>>>>enough room for growth), with the costs of hd's being so cheap
>>>>>>>>these days, why limit your growth,
>>>>>>>>buy a big enough drive to allow for all future possibilities of
>>>>>>>>growth, I'd say 20Gig is min, and 40 would be better, but each to
>>>>>>>>his own.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"BillW50" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In news:%23EELGMPcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>LVTravel typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:09:02 -0800:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Chuck" <Chuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:7BE96304-8FC2-4FEC-9918-D1DD0979284E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>>>>>I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>>>>>understanding that as part of the process, I will be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>>>>>how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I would
>>>>>>>>>>>like to install XP on its own partition so that if I have to
>>>>>>>>>>>re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>>>>>I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
>>>>>>>>>>>programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>Chuck
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs in
>>>>>>>>>>another, if you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall all of
>>>>>>>>>>your programs. The reason is that the registry is held in the
>>>>>>>>>>XP partition and almost all programs install data in the
>>>>>>>>>>registry. Your idea is good in that you want to keep your data
>>>>>>>>>>separate but don't try it with the programs.
>>>>>>>>>>Another issue with programs is that they like to save data more
>>>>>>>>>>and more where they like to by default. You need to change
>>>>>>>>>>your user defaults to the data drive also (Documents and
>>>>>>>>>>Settings, Temp file settings, etc.) If you don't you will
>>>>>>>>>>find that the size of the XP drive will continue to grow with
>>>>>>>>>>orphaned temp and data files. Depending on the size of your entire
>>>>>>>>>>drive I would recommend at
>>>>>>>>>>least 40 GB minimum (even though you can get by with less
>>>>>>>>>>depending on what programs you have to install and the amount
>>>>>>>>>>of hard drive space required for the virtual memory, 1 1/2
>>>>>>>>>>times size of your system memory.) I have one system that was
>>>>>>>>>>shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have
>>>>>>>>>>installed or moved all data and temps to the larger
>>>>>>>>>>partition but have also had to enlarge the OS partition to 40
>>>>>>>>>>GB to allow for installation of programs and still have a
>>>>>>>>>>little breathing room.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I disagree
>>>>>>>>>with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP SP2 needs 2.7GB
>>>>>>>>>just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile and hibernation
>>>>>>>>>files. Plus you need room for applications. This depends on you.
>>>>>>>>>If you only need like 12 or so applications, this is easy to
>>>>>>>>>figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD netbooks, I can tell
>>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course, but 8GB
>>>>>>>>>is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that can be saved and
>>>>>>>>>stored on something else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
>>>>>>>>>backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the OS
>>>>>>>>>and all of the applications either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old as
>>>>>>>8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old if you
>>>>>>>want too, but
>>>>>>>some of us are really for the future. You can join now, or later.
>>>>>>>The choice
>>>>>>>is up to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4 or
>>>>>>8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be many takers!
>>>>>>For almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB
>>>>>>drive for a Windows XP installation is almost certainly absurdly
>>>>>>too small! I wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything
>>>>>>smaller than 15GB. John
>>>>>
>>>>>32/64 gig drives are readily available. Larger than that isn't cost
>>>>>effective yet IMO.
>>>>
>>>>1) How much does a 32 GB SSD cost?
>>>>2) Isn't there a limit on the max number of SSD write or access
>>>>cycles?
>>>>I mean, I think it was as high as 100,000 (or so), but since there are
>>>>hundreds of write or disk access cycles going on to a HD every day
>>>>(including behind the scenes), then at that rate, 100,000 / 100 =
>>>>1000 days, or 3 years.
>>>
>>>No MTBF is 228 years.
>>
>>
>> You're suggesting that there isn't a limited number of write cycles for
>> SSDs? That's not what I've read. (I'm not talking about just leaving the
>> device on, and then it can last up to 228 years)
>
>You are right and he is wrong.
>
>John

What John (and Bill in Co.) said.

Max

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding that as part of the process, I will be able
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to install XP on its own partition so that if I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs
>>>>>>>>>>>> in another, if you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall
>>>>>>>>>>>> all of your programs. The reason is that the registry is
>>>>>>>>>>>> held in the XP partition and almost all programs install
>>>>>>>>>>>> data in the registry. Your idea is good in that you want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> keep your data separate but don't try it with the programs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another issue with programs is that they like to save data
>>>>>>>>>>>> more and more where they like to by default. You need to
>>>>>>>>>>>> change your user defaults to the data drive also (Documents
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Settings, Temp file settings, etc.) If you don't you
>>>>>>>>>>>> will find that the size of the XP drive will continue to
>>>>>>>>>>>> grow with orphaned temp and data files. Depending on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> size of your entire drive I would recommend at
>>>>>>>>>>>> least 40 GB minimum (even though you can get by with less
>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on what programs you have to install and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of hard drive space required for the virtual memory,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 1/2 times size of your system memory.) I have one system
>>>>>>>>>>>> that was shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB
>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions. Have installed or moved all data and temps to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the larger partition but have also had to enlarge the OS
>>>>>>>>>>>> partition to 40 GB to allow for installation of programs and
>>>>>>>>>>>> still have a little breathing room.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I disagree
>>>>>>>>>>> with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP SP2 needs
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.7GB just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile and
>>>>>>>>>>> hibernation files. Plus you need room for applications. This
>>>>>>>>>>> depends on you. If you only need like 12 or so applications,
>>>>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>>>>> easy to figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD
>>>>>>>>>>> netbooks, I can tell you that
>>>>>>>>>>> 4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course, but
>>>>>>>>>>> 8GB is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that can be
>>>>>>>>>>> saved and stored on something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
>>>>>>>>>>> backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the OS
>>>>>>>>>>> and all of the applications either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old
>>>>>>>>> as 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old
>>>>>>>>> if you want too, but some of us are really for the future. You
>>>>>>>>> can join now, or later. The choice is up to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4
>>>>>>>> or 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be many
>>>>>>>> takers! For almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or
>>>>>>>> even 8GB drive for a Windows XP installation is almost certainly
>>>>>>>> absurdly too small! I wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on
>>>>>>>> anything smaller than 15GB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is fine John! That just tells us that people like you have
>>>>>>> no clue how to do so. That is okay though, only the really
>>>>>>> intelligent people know how to do so right now. And if I had to
>>>>>>> trust my life on somebody, I would trust somebody who knows how
>>>>>>> vs. somebody that doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh please, Bill! Any idiot can install Windows XP on a small 4GB
>>>>>> drive, it can be installed on a way smaller drive than that if you
>>>>>> really have no other choice, don't think that we have never seen
>>>>>> Eee PCs! On a desktop installing Windows XP on such a small
>>>>>> drive will make it next to impossible to properly service the
>>>>>> installation, it will be a constant battle to try to keep the
>>>>>> installation within bounds. Any idiot can install Windows XP on
>>>>>> a 4GB drive but unless a person has no other choice and if there
>>>>>> is more available drive space than 4GB only an idiot would chose
>>>>>> to install on such a small drive!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really John? No only intelligent people can keep a Windows XP
>>>>> install with updates on a 4GB system and do what others are doing
>>>>> with lots more. The dummies of course can't do so. Thus if you hear
>>>>> of somebody who can, you know they are smarter than you.
>>>>
>>>> Suit yourself, Bill. Windows XP can be installed on as little as a
>>>> 1.5GB drive if that is what you want. Being "able" or "needing" to
>>>> do it and wanting to do it are different things. I don't know
>>>> anyone in their *right* mind who would want to bother with this
>>>> kind of a setup if they can at all avoid it, but do as you please.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is okay John! If I had a class of very smart people, this would
>>> be a test. I understand that many would fail, but that is okay.
>>> Because not everybody can be smart. ;)
>>
>> Obviously, you're the perfect example of that.
>
> Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.
>
> --
> Bill
> 2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
> 3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
> 2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
> Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
>

Now that the flaming has died down, I know that XP CAN be installed on a
much smaller partition than what I specified for the OP.

Personally I don't want to carry a small laptop with not enough storage
space inside to do the job I am currently doing. I don't want to have to
carry a portable hard drive to do what the internal drive can't do. I have
a 320 GB HDD inside the laptop that this is being typed on (granted it is a
Vista machine upgraded from XP with 4 GB of RAM which would require a 3-5 GB
virtual drive which really blows the hell out of a 8 GB SSD drive. Some of
my graphic files are larger than 8 GB in size by themselves and the video I
render on this system (in the field away from my desktop systems) are as
large as 10-15 GB. Until SSD gets cheaper and much larger, HDDs are still
the way to go FOR MOST PEOPLE.

While we know that Wikipedia is not the end all of data knowledge this
portion is significant to all the discussion of the SSD wearing out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

"Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write cycles
for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[9], while high endurance
cells may have an endurance of 1-5 million write cycles (many log files,
file allocation tables, and other commonly used parts of the file system
exceed this over the lifetime of a computer).[24] Special file systems or
firmware designs can mitigate this problem by spreading writes over the
entire device (so-called wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in
place.[25] In 2008 wear levelling was just beginning to be incorporated into
consumer level devices."

In news:ez6lGVUcJHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
Bill in Co. typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:57:46 -0700:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:%23pUoYKUcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>> Bill in Co. typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:38:35 -0700:
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> The date and time was Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:50:06 PM, and
>>>> on a whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>
>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:EC4B7C5E-FFCC-47D3-A1D3-0BF7CC2E70F1@microsoft.com,
>>>>>> sgopus typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:02:16 -0800:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whats to disagree with?
>>>>>>> in essence you said the same thing as travel, (Give yourself
>>>>>>> enough room for growth), with the costs of hd's being so cheap
>>>>>>> these days, why limit your growth,
>>>>>>> buy a big enough drive to allow for all future possibilities of
>>>>>>> growth, I'd say 20Gig is min, and 40 would be better, but each
>>>>>>> to his own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "BillW50" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In news:%23EELGMPcJHA.1704@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>> LVTravel typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:09:02 -0800:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Chuck" <Chuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:7BE96304-8FC2-4FEC-9918-D1DD0979284E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>>>> I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>>>> understanding that as part of the process, I will be able to
>>>>>>>>>> repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>>>> how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I
>>>>>>>>>> would like to install XP on its own partition so that if I
>>>>>>>>>> have to re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>>>> I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
>>>>>>>>>> programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>>> Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs
>>>>>>>>> in another, if you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall
>>>>>>>>> all of your programs. The reason is that the registry is
>>>>>>>>> held in the XP partition and almost all programs install data in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> registry. Your idea is good in that you want to keep your data
>>>>>>>>> separate but don't try it with the programs.
>>>>>>>>> Another issue with programs is that they like to save data
>>>>>>>>> more and more where they like to by default. You need to
>>>>>>>>> change your user defaults to the data drive also (Documents and
>>>>>>>>> Settings, Temp file settings, etc.) If you don't you will
>>>>>>>>> find that the size of the XP drive will continue to grow with
>>>>>>>>> orphaned temp and data files. Depending on the size of your
>>>>>>>>> entire drive I would recommend at
>>>>>>>>> least 40 GB minimum (even though you can get by with less
>>>>>>>>> depending on what programs you have to install and the amount
>>>>>>>>> of hard drive space required for the virtual memory, 1 1/2
>>>>>>>>> times size of your system memory.) I have one system that was
>>>>>>>>> shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions.
>>>>>>>>> Have installed or moved all data and temps to the larger
>>>>>>>>> partition but have also had to enlarge the OS partition to 40
>>>>>>>>> GB to allow for installation of programs and still have a
>>>>>>>>> little breathing room.
>>>>>>>> As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I disagree
>>>>>>>> with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP SP2 needs 2.7GB
>>>>>>>> just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile and hibernation
>>>>>>>> files. Plus you need room for applications. This depends on
>>>>>>>> you. If you only need like 12 or so applications, this is easy
>>>>>>>> to figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD netbooks, I
>>>>>>>> can tell you
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> 4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course, but
>>>>>>>> 8GB is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that can be
>>>>>>>> saved and stored on something else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
>>>>>>>> backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the OS
>>>>>>>> and all of the applications either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old as
>>>>>> 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old if
>>>>>> you want too, but
>>>>>> some of us are really for the future. You can join now, or later.
>>>>>> The choice
>>>>>> is up to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4 or
>>>>> 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be many
>>>>> takers! For almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or
>>>>> even 8GB drive for a Windows XP installation is almost certainly
>>>>> absurdly too small! I wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on
>>>>> anything smaller than 15GB. John
>>>>
>>>> 32/64 gig drives are readily available. Larger than that isn't
>>>> cost effective yet IMO.
>>>
>>> 1) How much does a 32 GB SSD cost?
>>> 2) Isn't there a limit on the max number of SSD write or access
>>> cycles?
>>> I mean, I think it was as high as 100,000 (or so), but since there
>>> are hundreds of write or disk access cycles going on to a HD every
>>> day (including behind the scenes), then at that rate, 100,000 / 100
>>> = 1000 days, or 3 years.
>>
>> No MTBF is 228 years.
>
> You're suggesting that there isn't a limited number of write cycles
> for SSDs? That's not what I've read. (I'm not talking about just
> leaving the device on, and then it can last up to 228 years).

I am not talking about just leaving them on either. If I wanted to wear one
out, it would take me over 11 years of overwriting the whole SSD 24 times a
day to do so. But most people don't operate in this way. So they are
expected to last 228 years.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=901

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

In news:OplAvKXcJHA.5340@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
LVTravel typed on Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:22:55 -0500:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding that as part of the process, I will be able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to install XP on its own partition so that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs in another, if you reinstall XP you will have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reinstall all of your programs. The reason is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> registry is held in the XP partition and almost all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs install data in the registry. Your idea is good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that you want to keep your data separate but don't try
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it with the programs. Another issue with programs is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they like to save data more and more where they like to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by default. You need to change your user defaults to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data drive also (Documents and Settings, Temp file
>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings, etc.) If you don't you will find that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the XP drive will continue to grow with orphaned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> temp and data files. Depending on the size of your entire
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive I would recommend at least 40 GB minimum (even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can get by with less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on what programs you have to install and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of hard drive space required for the virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory, 1 1/2 times size of your system memory.) I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one system that was shipped with a 100 GB drive split
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have installed or moved all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data and temps to the larger partition but have also had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> installation of programs and still have a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>> breathing room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I
>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP
>>>>>>>>>>>> SP2 needs 2.7GB just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> hibernation files. Plus you need room for applications.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This depends on you. If you only need like 12 or so
>>>>>>>>>>>> applications, this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> easy to figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD
>>>>>>>>>>>> netbooks, I can tell you that
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but 8GB is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be saved and stored on something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the
>>>>>>>>>>>> OS and all of the applications either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as
>>>>>>>>>> old as 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with
>>>>>>>>>> the old if you want too, but some of us are really for the
>>>>>>>>>> future. You can join now, or later. The choice is up to you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny
>>>>>>>>> 4 or 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be
>>>>>>>>> many takers! For almost all users, especially desktop users,
>>>>>>>>> a 4 or even 8GB drive for a Windows XP installation is almost
>>>>>>>>> certainly absurdly too small! I wouldn't bother installing
>>>>>>>>> Windows XP on anything smaller than 15GB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is fine John! That just tells us that people like you have
>>>>>>>> no clue how to do so. That is okay though, only the really
>>>>>>>> intelligent people know how to do so right now. And if I had to
>>>>>>>> trust my life on somebody, I would trust somebody who knows how
>>>>>>>> vs. somebody that doesn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh please, Bill! Any idiot can install Windows XP on a small
>>>>>>> 4GB drive, it can be installed on a way smaller drive than that
>>>>>>> if you really have no other choice, don't think that we have
>>>>>>> never seen Eee PCs! On a desktop installing Windows XP on
>>>>>>> such a small drive will make it next to impossible to properly
>>>>>>> service the installation, it will be a constant battle to try
>>>>>>> to keep the installation within bounds. Any idiot can install
>>>>>>> Windows XP on a 4GB drive but unless a person has no other
>>>>>>> choice and if there is more available drive space than 4GB only
>>>>>>> an idiot would chose to install on such a small drive!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really John? No only intelligent people can keep a Windows XP
>>>>>> install with updates on a 4GB system and do what others are doing
>>>>>> with lots more. The dummies of course can't do so. Thus if you
>>>>>> hear of somebody who can, you know they are smarter than you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suit yourself, Bill. Windows XP can be installed on as little as
>>>>> a 1.5GB drive if that is what you want. Being "able" or "needing"
>>>>> to do it and wanting to do it are different things. I don't know
>>>>> anyone in their *right* mind who would want to bother with this
>>>>> kind of a setup if they can at all avoid it, but do as you please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is okay John! If I had a class of very smart people, this
>>>> would be a test. I understand that many would fail, but that is
>>>> okay. Because not everybody can be smart. ;)
>>>
>>> Obviously, you're the perfect example of that.
>>
>> Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.
>
> Now that the flaming has died down, I know that XP CAN be installed
> on a much smaller partition than what I specified for the OP.
>
> Personally I don't want to carry a small laptop with not enough
> storage space inside to do the job I am currently doing. I don't want
> to have to carry a portable hard drive to do what the internal drive
> can't do. I have a 320 GB HDD inside the laptop that this is being
> typed on (granted it is a Vista machine upgraded from XP with 4 GB of
> RAM which would require a 3-5 GB virtual drive which really blows the
> hell out of a 8 GB SSD drive. Some of my graphic files are larger
> than 8 GB in size by themselves and the video I render on this system
> (in the field away from my desktop systems) are as large as 10-15 GB.
> Until SSD gets cheaper and much larger, HDDs are still the way to go
> FOR MOST PEOPLE.
> While we know that Wikipedia is not the end all of data knowledge this
> portion is significant to all the discussion of the SSD wearing out
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive
>
> "Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write
> cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[9], while high
> endurance cells may have an endurance of 1-5 million write cycles
> (many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly used
> parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a
> computer).[24] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate
> this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called
> wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in place.[25] In 2008
> wear levelling was just beginning to be incorporated into consumer
> level devices."

That is what I mean. You have no idea. As I have two 16GB SD cards and they
are the size of a postage stamp. Each one contains 80 hours worth of videos.
So that is 160 hours worth. And I am doing this with a computer that weighs
less than 2 pounds and using only 10 watts of power.

You claim sounds right for SLC, as this is what I have heard as well.
Although do you know how long 100,000 writes will take? It is expected to
take 228 years for most people. Which is about 7 times longer than your hard
drive is expected to last actually.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=901

As for MLC, I don't know about only 10,000 writes? It could be true, but I
stay away from MLC types anyway. As they have to erase first before they can
write, which slows them down. I don't recommend them for running an OS and
applications at any rate.

I don't know what you are doing with 8GB graphic files? You're definitely
not in the normal user group. As I haven't even heard of serious gamers
using files that large. So what are you doing? Mapping the galaxy? As I
could put 40 hours worth of video in your graphic file.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:#keTuhZcJHA.1760@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> In news:OplAvKXcJHA.5340@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> LVTravel typed on Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:22:55 -0500:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding that as part of the process, I will be able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to install XP on its own partition so that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs in another, if you reinstall XP you will have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reinstall all of your programs. The reason is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> registry is held in the XP partition and almost all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs install data in the registry. Your idea is good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that you want to keep your data separate but don't try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it with the programs. Another issue with programs is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they like to save data more and more where they like to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by default. You need to change your user defaults to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data drive also (Documents and Settings, Temp file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings, etc.) If you don't you will find that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the XP drive will continue to grow with orphaned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temp and data files. Depending on the size of your entire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive I would recommend at least 40 GB minimum (even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can get by with less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on what programs you have to install and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of hard drive space required for the virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory, 1 1/2 times size of your system memory.) I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one system that was shipped with a 100 GB drive split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have installed or moved all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data and temps to the larger partition but have also had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installation of programs and still have a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breathing room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SP2 needs 2.7GB just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hibernation files. Plus you need room for applications.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This depends on you. If you only need like 12 or so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications, this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy to figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> netbooks, I can tell you that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but 8GB is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be saved and stored on something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OS and all of the applications either.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as
>>>>>>>>>>> old as 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with
>>>>>>>>>>> the old if you want too, but some of us are really for the
>>>>>>>>>>> future. You can join now, or later. The choice is up to you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny
>>>>>>>>>> 4 or 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be
>>>>>>>>>> many takers! For almost all users, especially desktop users,
>>>>>>>>>> a 4 or even 8GB drive for a Windows XP installation is almost
>>>>>>>>>> certainly absurdly too small! I wouldn't bother installing
>>>>>>>>>> Windows XP on anything smaller than 15GB.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is fine John! That just tells us that people like you have
>>>>>>>>> no clue how to do so. That is okay though, only the really
>>>>>>>>> intelligent people know how to do so right now. And if I had to
>>>>>>>>> trust my life on somebody, I would trust somebody who knows how
>>>>>>>>> vs. somebody that doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh please, Bill! Any idiot can install Windows XP on a small
>>>>>>>> 4GB drive, it can be installed on a way smaller drive than that
>>>>>>>> if you really have no other choice, don't think that we have
>>>>>>>> never seen Eee PCs! On a desktop installing Windows XP on
>>>>>>>> such a small drive will make it next to impossible to properly
>>>>>>>> service the installation, it will be a constant battle to try
>>>>>>>> to keep the installation within bounds. Any idiot can install
>>>>>>>> Windows XP on a 4GB drive but unless a person has no other
>>>>>>>> choice and if there is more available drive space than 4GB only
>>>>>>>> an idiot would chose to install on such a small drive!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really John? No only intelligent people can keep a Windows XP
>>>>>>> install with updates on a 4GB system and do what others are doing
>>>>>>> with lots more. The dummies of course can't do so. Thus if you
>>>>>>> hear of somebody who can, you know they are smarter than you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suit yourself, Bill. Windows XP can be installed on as little as
>>>>>> a 1.5GB drive if that is what you want. Being "able" or "needing"
>>>>>> to do it and wanting to do it are different things. I don't know
>>>>>> anyone in their *right* mind who would want to bother with this
>>>>>> kind of a setup if they can at all avoid it, but do as you please.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is okay John! If I had a class of very smart people, this
>>>>> would be a test. I understand that many would fail, but that is
>>>>> okay. Because not everybody can be smart. ;)
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, you're the perfect example of that.
>>>
>>> Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.
>>
>> Now that the flaming has died down, I know that XP CAN be installed
>> on a much smaller partition than what I specified for the OP.
>>
>> Personally I don't want to carry a small laptop with not enough
>> storage space inside to do the job I am currently doing. I don't want
>> to have to carry a portable hard drive to do what the internal drive
>> can't do. I have a 320 GB HDD inside the laptop that this is being
>> typed on (granted it is a Vista machine upgraded from XP with 4 GB of
>> RAM which would require a 3-5 GB virtual drive which really blows the
>> hell out of a 8 GB SSD drive. Some of my graphic files are larger
>> than 8 GB in size by themselves and the video I render on this system
>> (in the field away from my desktop systems) are as large as 10-15 GB.
>> Until SSD gets cheaper and much larger, HDDs are still the way to go
>> FOR MOST PEOPLE.
>> While we know that Wikipedia is not the end all of data knowledge this
>> portion is significant to all the discussion of the SSD wearing out
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive
>>
>> "Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write
>> cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[9], while high
>> endurance cells may have an endurance of 1-5 million write cycles
>> (many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly used
>> parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a
>> computer).[24] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate
>> this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called
>> wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in place.[25] In 2008
>> wear levelling was just beginning to be incorporated into consumer
>> level devices."
>
> That is what I mean. You have no idea. As I have two 16GB SD cards and
> they are the size of a postage stamp. Each one contains 80 hours worth of
> videos. So that is 160 hours worth. And I am doing this with a computer
> that weighs less than 2 pounds and using only 10 watts of power.
>
> You claim sounds right for SLC, as this is what I have heard as well.
> Although do you know how long 100,000 writes will take? It is expected to
> take 228 years for most people. Which is about 7 times longer than your
> hard drive is expected to last actually.
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=901
>
> As for MLC, I don't know about only 10,000 writes? It could be true, but I
> stay away from MLC types anyway. As they have to erase first before they
> can write, which slows them down. I don't recommend them for running an OS
> and applications at any rate.
>
> I don't know what you are doing with 8GB graphic files? You're definitely
> not in the normal user group. As I haven't even heard of serious gamers
> using files that large. So what are you doing? Mapping the galaxy? As I
> could put 40 hours worth of video in your graphic file.
>
> --
> Bill
> 2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
> 3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
> 2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
> Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
>

I am converting hours of raw uncompressed video from cameras into movies
that run from 15 minutes to three hours. As I said, video that is of high
quality uncompressed will take more storage space than super compressed .wmv
or divx or MPG4 video. I don't compress until I have the final product
being written to DVD. That way I have the cleanest video for my clients.
When I convert to HD video, the file sizes will be larger yet.

Same with the still pictures that are taken. Even though they are .jpg from
the camera the file sizes are 2-5 MB each. I then convert them to a
uncompressed file format to ensure that I don't have any image loss in
subsequent editing of the photos. When you take 150-300 pictures that also
fills up hard drive space quickly also.

Who said anything about gaming. There are other uses for computers than
gaming. I don't have time for gaming and haven't played a computer game in
at least the last 10 years (since I put to rest my old Kaypro 16 bit
processor system.)

I would also like to know what file format those 80 hours of video are in
that is held in 16 GB of data space.

In news:ulKrW3bcJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
LVTravel typed on Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:20:55 -0500:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:#keTuhZcJHA.1760@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> In news:OplAvKXcJHA.5340@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>> LVTravel typed on Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:22:55 -0500:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi again, All.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding that as part of the process, I will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to repartition the HDD. My question is,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much HDD space does XP require for proper running?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to install XP on its own partition so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if I have to re-reinstall in future,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and programs. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs in another, if you reinstall XP you will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reinstall all of your programs. The reason is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the registry is held in the XP partition and almost all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs install data in the registry. Your idea is good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that you want to keep your data separate but don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try it with the programs. Another issue with programs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that they like to save data more and more where they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like to by default. You need to change your user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defaults to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the data drive also (Documents and Settings, Temp file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings, etc.) If you don't you will find that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the XP drive will continue to grow with orphaned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temp and data files. Depending on the size of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire drive I would recommend at least 40 GB minimum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even though you can get by with less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on what programs you have to install and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of hard drive space required for the virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory, 1 1/2 times size of your system memory.) I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one system that was shipped with a 100 GB drive split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have installed or moved all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data and temps to the larger partition but have also had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installation of programs and still have a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breathing room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SP2 needs 2.7GB just for itself. Now you need to add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pagefile and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hibernation files. Plus you need room for applications.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This depends on you. If you only need like 12 or so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications, this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy to figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> netbooks, I can tell you that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but 8GB is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be saved and stored on something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete backups on occations. Thus you don't have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reinstall the OS and all of the applications either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as
>>>>>>>>>>>> old as 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the old if you want too, but some of us are really for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> future. You can join now, or later. The choice is up to
>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on
>>>>>>>>>>> tiny 4 or 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will
>>>>>>>>>>> not be many takers! For almost all users, especially
>>>>>>>>>>> desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB drive for a Windows XP
>>>>>>>>>>> installation is almost certainly absurdly too small! I
>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything smaller
>>>>>>>>>>> than 15GB.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is fine John! That just tells us that people like you
>>>>>>>>>> have no clue how to do so. That is okay though, only the
>>>>>>>>>> really intelligent people know how to do so right now. And
>>>>>>>>>> if I had to trust my life on somebody, I would trust
>>>>>>>>>> somebody who knows how vs. somebody that doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh please, Bill! Any idiot can install Windows XP on a small
>>>>>>>>> 4GB drive, it can be installed on a way smaller drive than
>>>>>>>>> that if you really have no other choice, don't think that we
>>>>>>>>> have never seen Eee PCs! On a desktop installing Windows XP
>>>>>>>>> on such a small drive will make it next to impossible to
>>>>>>>>> properly service the installation, it will be a constant
>>>>>>>>> battle to try to keep the installation within bounds. Any
>>>>>>>>> idiot can install Windows XP on a 4GB drive but unless a
>>>>>>>>> person has no other choice and if there is more available
>>>>>>>>> drive space than 4GB only an idiot would chose to install on
>>>>>>>>> such a small drive!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really John? No only intelligent people can keep a Windows XP
>>>>>>>> install with updates on a 4GB system and do what others are
>>>>>>>> doing with lots more. The dummies of course can't do so. Thus
>>>>>>>> if you hear of somebody who can, you know they are smarter
>>>>>>>> than you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suit yourself, Bill. Windows XP can be installed on as little
>>>>>>> as a 1.5GB drive if that is what you want. Being "able" or
>>>>>>> "needing" to do it and wanting to do it are different things. I
>>>>>>> don't know anyone in their *right* mind who would want to
>>>>>>> bother with this kind of a setup if they can at all avoid it,
>>>>>>> but do as you please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is okay John! If I had a class of very smart people, this
>>>>>> would be a test. I understand that many would fail, but that is
>>>>>> okay. Because not everybody can be smart. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, you're the perfect example of that.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.
>>>
>>> Now that the flaming has died down, I know that XP CAN be installed
>>> on a much smaller partition than what I specified for the OP.
>>>
>>> Personally I don't want to carry a small laptop with not enough
>>> storage space inside to do the job I am currently doing. I don't
>>> want to have to carry a portable hard drive to do what the internal
>>> drive can't do. I have a 320 GB HDD inside the laptop that this is
>>> being typed on (granted it is a Vista machine upgraded from XP with
>>> 4 GB of RAM which would require a 3-5 GB virtual drive which really
>>> blows the hell out of a 8 GB SSD drive. Some of my graphic files
>>> are larger than 8 GB in size by themselves and the video I render
>>> on this system (in the field away from my desktop systems) are as
>>> large as 10-15 GB. Until SSD gets cheaper and much larger, HDDs are
>>> still the way to go FOR MOST PEOPLE.
>>> While we know that Wikipedia is not the end all of data knowledge
>>> this portion is significant to all the discussion of the SSD
>>> wearing out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive
>>>
>>> "Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write
>>> cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[9], while
>>> high endurance cells may have an endurance of 1-5 million write
>>> cycles (many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly
>>> used parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a
>>> computer).[24] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate
>>> this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called
>>> wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in place.[25] In 2008
>>> wear levelling was just beginning to be incorporated into consumer
>>> level devices."
>>
>> That is what I mean. You have no idea. As I have two 16GB SD cards
>> and they are the size of a postage stamp. Each one contains 80 hours
>> worth of videos. So that is 160 hours worth. And I am doing this
>> with a computer that weighs less than 2 pounds and using only 10
>> watts of power. You claim sounds right for SLC, as this is what I
>> have heard as well.
>> Although do you know how long 100,000 writes will take? It is
>> expected to take 228 years for most people. Which is about 7 times
>> longer than your hard drive is expected to last actually.
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=901
>>
>> As for MLC, I don't know about only 10,000 writes? It could be true,
>> but I stay away from MLC types anyway. As they have to erase first
>> before they can write, which slows them down. I don't recommend them
>> for running an OS and applications at any rate.
>>
>> I don't know what you are doing with 8GB graphic files? You're
>> definitely not in the normal user group. As I haven't even heard of
>> serious gamers using files that large. So what are you doing?
>> Mapping the galaxy? As I could put 40 hours worth of video in your
>> graphic file. Bill
>
> I am converting hours of raw uncompressed video from cameras into
> movies that run from 15 minutes to three hours. As I said, video
> that is of high quality uncompressed will take more storage space
> than super compressed .wmv or divx or MPG4 video. I don't compress
> until I have the final product being written to DVD. That way I have
> the cleanest video for my clients. When I convert to HD video, the
> file sizes will be larger yet.
> Same with the still pictures that are taken. Even though they are
> .jpg from the camera the file sizes are 2-5 MB each. I then convert
> them to a uncompressed file format to ensure that I don't have any
> image loss in subsequent editing of the photos. When you take
> 150-300 pictures that also fills up hard drive space quickly also.
>
> Who said anything about gaming. There are other uses for computers
> than gaming. I don't have time for gaming and haven't played a
> computer game in at least the last 10 years (since I put to rest my
> old Kaypro 16 bit processor system.)
>
> I would also like to know what file format those 80 hours of video
> are in that is held in 16 GB of data space.

Well that is very unusual use of a computer and I don't believe you fall
in the majority category. I only mentioned gaming as this technology is
pushed for the gamers who always wants more power. Which makes slightly
older technology cheaper for the rest of us. ;)

As for my compressed video format, I use either WMV or FLV. And if seen
on a large screen, it isn't so good. But on smaller screens like
netbooks, it looks pretty good. ;)

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:09:02 -0800, "LVTravel" <none@nothere.com>
wrote:

> I have one system that was
>shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have
>installed or moved all data and temps to the larger partition but have also
>had to enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for installation of
>programs and still have a little breathing room.

My XP partition is just 6gb and all data is saved on another
partition.

I cleanup crap weekly and have plenty of space in the XP partition.

And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with no
deterioration in performance - editing video and audio files.

Hope this helps

--
Thanks for your time and attention
Archer

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:37:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>1. It's a lot of work to back up your data, reinstall Windows, reload
>all your drivers, restore your data, reload all your programs,
>reconfigure Windows and all your programs the way you like to have
>them, etc.

I do not do it that way at all. Install Windows, tweak it as best as
possible and create an image. No need to save data as all data are on
another partition (being saved to CD periodically).

Whenever occasion arises for reinstall I just use the saved image and
have the new XP install in two or three minutes.

The programs I normally use are conveniently store in a folder in
another partition/CD and in a matter of 10 minutes all the programs
are installed and I just have to copy the saved links that point to
the data in the other partitions.

Easy does it

Hope this helps

--
Thanks for your time and attention
Archer

Ardent wrote:

> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with no
> deterioration in performance - editing video and audio files.

Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of running
without a pagefile?

John

In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
> Ardent wrote:
>
>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with no
>> deterioration in performance - editing video and audio files.
>
> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of
> running without a pagefile?

Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I started not
to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too much writing to a SSD
slows them down and shortens their lifespan.

And I have noticed no difference at all if you have enough RAM. Although
Windows isn't even using the pagefile even if you have it turned on in
this case, so it really doesn't matter. I have noticed 1GB or more
though is the trip point for me.

Having not enough memory (RAM), what happens without a pagefile is you
will see delays (pauses) in the OS and applications. And it will get
worse if you don't start closing down applications you are not using or
simply rebooting. If you ignore the freezing, Windows will suddenly just
stop. And you will barely have a chance to even shutdown if it will even
allow you to do this.

But the whole purpose of VM (aka pagefile) is to use the mass storage
device as more physical RAM anyway. And if you have enough, you actually
don't need it at all. As I never had seen a single problem yet.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu