The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Just got myself a new laptop and started it up, and noticed - the 160 GB hard drive was partitioned by the manufacturer.
First: Why would it be split like this? Vista doesn't need that much space, as far as I can tell.
Second: Would leaving Vista on it's own partition be an effective way of maybe keeping my computer's speed up?
Third: I know how to resize the partitions with Vista. Should I?
Fourth: If yes, how much space do I allocate the Vista drive? Presumably I can keep everything else on the enlarged \ once I reallocate the space.
1. Splitting the drive into two or more partitions makes it easier if you need to reinstall windows for any reason.
2. Not really. You only get decent speed advantages when you isolate system partitions and data partitions on their own physical disks.
3. If you want to, but you don't really need to.
4. Personally I'd leave it as is, but that's just me, and my Steam Cache (which I keep on C:) alone is about 40GB. I keep media and documents on my data partition (which is actually E:, I use for the optical).
[edit] ha ha emoticons, I so leaving them in, but is D for those of you not familiar
Posts
1. Splitting the drive into two or more partitions makes it easier if you need to reinstall windows for any reason.
2. Not really. You only get decent speed advantages when you isolate system partitions and data partitions on their own physical disks.
3. If you want to, but you don't really need to.
4. Personally I'd leave it as is, but that's just me, and my Steam Cache (which I keep on C:) alone is about 40GB. I keep media and documents on my data partition (which is actually E:, I use for the optical).
[edit] ha ha emoticons, I so leaving them in, but is D for those of you not familiar