I bought a new larger hard drive and rather than cloning the old one
over to the new one, I'd prefer to do a new clean install (it's been 3
years since I installed XP).

I have all my ducks in a row (install CD, key from case, software to re-
install, etc..)

However, I'd like to get max performance. So... Having surfed the net
the two biggest suggestions I ran across repeatedly were to create a
small 10gig or so partition to place the swap file on and a 40ish gig
partition to install the OS.

I should install all of my apps, etc.. onto a partition seperate from
the OS to make backups easier.

Does this sound correct? Or should I just make two partitions (one for
OS/apps and one for swap file)?

When performing a clean install, Microsoft recommends that NTFS be used
and that the system be installed in a single partition on each disk. Under
Windows XP, big partitions are better managed than in previous versions
of Windows. Forcing installed software into several partitions on the disk
necessitates longer seeks when running the system and software.

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/benchmark.mspx


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows Vista Enthusiast

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Dave Navarro" <dave@no.way.dude> wrote in message news:MPG.22b9ba09ae989c4989683@msnews.microsoft.co m...
I bought a new larger hard drive and rather than cloning the old one
over to the new one, I'd prefer to do a new clean install (it's been 3
years since I installed XP).

I have all my ducks in a row (install CD, key from case, software to re-
install, etc..)

However, I'd like to get max performance. So... Having surfed the net
the two biggest suggestions I ran across repeatedly were to create a
small 10gig or so partition to place the swap file on and a 40ish gig
partition to install the OS.

I should install all of my apps, etc.. onto a partition seperate from
the OS to make backups easier.

Does this sound correct? Or should I just make two partitions (one for
OS/apps and one for swap file)?

In article <ujQdVN#yIHA.3384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com says...
Thanks!

So, it's no longer recommended to create a seperate partition for the
swap file?

Dave Navarro wrote:
Windows XP creates one that is 12% of the partition by default. You may
want to shrink that a bit ...

Alias

If there is nothing wrong with the old drive, use it for the Swap/pagefile.
(Note: disconnect the old drive before you start the clean install, it will
serve as a backup just in case you have problems with the new drive)

I do install Windows on C: and Apps on the D: partition.
I also use image backup software so I can restore both C and D in case of a
drive failure.
(Image backup are created monthly just before I install the latest Windows
Updates or as
required when installing Application updates)

After you have Windows up and running on the new drive for a while and are
satisfied there are no problems then you can connect the old drive and
create at least two partitions, one for the pagefile and one for storing
Image backups of your new drive.

How to move the paging file in Windows XP:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307886

Don't forget to backup any important data on your old drive to a DVD just in
case....

JS

"Dave Navarro" <dave@no.way.dude> wrote in message
news:MPG.22b9ba09ae989c4989683@msnews.microsoft.co m...

Correct. Your computer will perform best when
the page file remains on the same partition as the
operating system.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows Vista Enthusiast

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Dave Navarro" <dave@no.way.dude> wrote in message news:MPG.22b9c00ff9a23343989685@msnews.microsoft.c om...
In article <ujQdVN#yIHA.3384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com says...
Thanks!

So, it's no longer recommended to create a seperate partition for the
swap file?

JS wrote:
Putting the page file on a separate drive is a good idea, but see
How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314482

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

That is the article I was looking for but could not find it.

Thanks
JS

"Lem" <lemp40@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23cYelY%23yIHA.5620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Dave Navarro wrote:
Another issue to remember is that if you have one drive and partition it
into many segments, you the user think its separate drives C: D: E:,
along with the OS. But the reality is its still one piece of hardware
and one motor and one set of read heads. Any performance increase by
putting software on another drive is null and void since you only have
one set of heads and one platter. If you had 2 HD's, then I might agree
you see more performance since heads on drive c: can move independent of
those on drive D:
It may be easy to make backups with OS / data split like this maybe.
I'll leave that up to your backup logic. Any backup that works is right
IMO.

"Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message
news:g2p0d3$97m$4@aioe.org...
Although the default allocation is 12%, XP does *not* create a seprate
partition for the page file by default!

Daave wrote:
I don't think so. See below.

I don't think it's the pagefile you're talking about (at 12%). It's the
portion of the partition reserved for System Restore (the System Volume
Information folder).

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Oee9BiEzIHA.3884@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Right you are. Bill. Senior moment, I suppose!

Daave wrote:
Good. For a minute there I was beginning to question my own! :-)

Bill in Co. wrote:
Hmmm, you're right. My bad.

Alias

10 Gig is a little small unless you don't have many programs installed.
20 Gig is much more future-safe; I use 40 Gig for mine.

Wont' help much with speed/efficiency but does make backups easier to do
and quicker as a rule since you can easily choose to back up only that
partition (drive). I have my OS in one partition, data in another
(actually several, but I'm not an "average" user).
If you only have one physical hard drive (piece of hardware), leave the
swap file where it is; just increase the partition to larger than ten as
I mentioned above. You CAN move it, but you won't see any benefit to it
and could see a negative benefit.
Where you MIGHT see some benefit, if you are a heavy user, is to put
the page file (swap file) on ANOTHER separate piece of hardware - a
second physical hard. Regardless of how many paritions you have,
putting the page file on a different PHYSICAL hard drive can result in
some improvements in speed/efficiency.
But for the casual/average user, it might not be a noticeable
difference, so it depends on what applications you run and when and how.
As a general rule, adding RAM is the first thing to do if you have
speed problems. Then the page file is used much less and becomes much
less of an issue. Then again, for the "average" user, that might not
cause any noticeable improvement either, so again, it depends on what
you're doing and when and how.

Sorry if that sounds weasly; it is, in a way because those things are
dependent of quite a few variables and thre is no one size fits all
rule. There ins't any hard and fast rule for such things, only
generalities, unless specific problems are being noted. And since you
didn't mention any ...

HTH

Incorrect. It never has been recommended to put the page file into
another location UNLESS it is to locate it on a different hard drive
than the one the operating system lives on. Two hard drives (not
partitions) are required in order to get any benefit from it which, in
many instances, may not create any noticeable improvements anyway.
In general, no, there is no need to. For some, yes, there is. It
depends on the particular case under discussion.

No.
The page file size varies with the needs of RAM.
To see what the page file is occupying, open the tool for setting the
page file size; it'll tell you right there the min/max size of the page
file.
It is SELDOM a good decision to change the setting from "Let windows
manage" to hard and fast numbes unless you know EXACTLY what you're
doing and WHY.
There are also many page file monitors soyou can see exactly what the
page file is doing at all times. 90% of the time it's best to let
windows manage the page file size.

HTH

When there is only one hard drive, that's true.

Usually even true when there are two or more hard drives but not
always. It then depends on othe variables whether it will help anything
or not.
I only say this because the OP didn't bother to provide any specs to
his system; all that could be assumed was XP and then even that isnt' a
certainty.

Regards,

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:

For the SWAP FILE????

Reading is a skill.