Creating Partitions = Speed Up

I'm personally not a fan of partitions anymore.

I used to use them all the time in my Linux days and tried to force Windows to use a similar scheme, but many apps would ignore that and use C: anyway. The partitions would then become a liability as one of them would invariably be too small.

So I have quit trying. I like the flexibility that comes with a single, free-flowing partition.

NTFS and HFS+ are far more robust than FAT32 so I don't fear file system corruption as much anymore...

B

To some degree, it is true. If you have like 50 folders in my documents or 100 programs in the start menu, opening either will take a long time. I think this is a function of searching folders. The same is true if you have a lot of files stored in the desktop. Every so often windows will "refresh" the icons and you get a funny lag while the icons recolor.

However for the most part I don't think it matters as long as you don't populate the start menu, docs folder, or desktop with too many files. For a single OS computer, I prefer a single partition. For a dual boot computer, I do prefer a 3rd partition for data, even though it could cause corruption problems later on (I tend to back up data regularly).

vistadude said:

To some degree, it is true. If you have like 50 folders in my documents or 100 programs in the start menu, opening either will take a long time. I think this is a function of searching folders..

Click to expand...

I thought about mentioning this, and kind of alluded to it in my final comment.

FAT32 doesn't scale well and suffers particularly from this kind of slowdown. However, in my experience, creating a new folder on NTFS is just as efficient as creating a new partition due to the way the folder structure is stored and traversed.

There are many other ways of getting shared data space, like Dropbox or NAS which scale better to multi-machine and platform systems.

B