PartitionMagic

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Will, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. Will

    Will Guest

    Has anyone had any luck using Partition Magic 8.0 with their 4600 or 2400?
    I'm considering partitioning my 120 GB hardrive in the following manner to
    increase speed, organization, etc.

    C: software
    F: financial/personal files
    M: Music
    S: Downloads


    Any suggestions how the best way to proceed?
     
    Will, Feb 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Will, you don't have anything to worry about. Partition Magic has great
    documentation, an easy to use interface, and it's very reliable. Just be
    sure you read through all the documentation carefully, back up, and take
    your time. You'll do just fine.

    Rocky
     
    Rocket J. Squirrel, Feb 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. what's the advantage that you see to having multiple partitions rather than
    just using multiple folders?

    multiple partitions used to be desirable as large partitions did not
    efficiently use disk space (large partitions used to mean large
    partitions)... but if you are talking about using windows xp and ntfs that
    is not the case (with partitions larger than 2mb).

    xp-ntfs/dos
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314878
    ntfs/dos
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;140365
     
    Christopher Muto, Feb 23, 2004
    #3
  4. make that: large partitions used to mean large cluster size.
     
    Christopher Muto, Feb 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Data in one, OS and software in another. When you have to do an OS
    scrub, the data is safely tucked away in another partition. Still smart to
    keep data backed up elsewhere, but you don't have to copy it all back over.

    If you get smart and force all of your programs to store templates and
    the like on the data partition, so much the better.

    I can't confirm it, but there is also some thought that things like swap
    files and scratch disks for Photoshop are best kept on a separate partition
    as well. I may try that next time around. The Photoshop scratch disk is
    often accused of scrambling hard drives.
     
    Thomas M. Goethe, Feb 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Will

    Phred Guest

    Is 2 "multiple"?

    I see a decided advantage for having the OS and applications on C: and
    data etc. on something else -- if only because you can have various
    images of C: on the other partition (if it's big enough :) to allow a
    gracefull return to a previous installation should you stuff something
    up later.
    I agree that four is probably overdoing it for most purposes.


    Cheers, Phred.
     
    Phred, Feb 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Will

    Phred Guest

    Found in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, comments requested.

    Any of you aus.photo/computers gurus like to comment on your
    experiences with PS in this regard, please?

    What about swap files generally?




    Cheers, Phred.
     
    Phred, Feb 23, 2004
    #7
  8. that has its merits, but in my experience i find that most users don't even
    take the time to relocate outlook data, and also leave their quicken data in
    the quicken folder... two examples of where separating 'data' from
    'programs' fail unless the user is conscientious.
     
    Christopher Muto, Feb 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Another good point. Forgot to mention that. Also, if you want an image
    backup before doing something chancy, it makes for a smaller image to store
    off the main drive.
     
    Thomas M. Goethe, Feb 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Everything fails if used without due care, but I always try to get folks
    to use due care. In my mind, that means separate partitions for data and OS
    and software. Admitedly, some people don't have or desire the skills to do
    this, but most have the light go after a major loss of information.
     
    Thomas M. Goethe, Feb 23, 2004
    #10
  11. You might look on the forums at http://www.robgalbriaht.com. It's a site
    for professional digital photographers. I've seen this accusation made there
    more than once. I can't confirm it since I have never tried a separate
    partition for Photoshop. It is standard practice on the Macs we use at the
    type and gripe, however, to have a separate partition just for Photoshop, on
    both the OS 9 and OS 10 machines.

    They also say the Photoshop scratch disk is best on a separate drive.
     
    Thomas M. Goethe, Feb 23, 2004
    #11
  12. You are quite correct, of course. If someone is going to put their data on a
    separate partition, as I do, then they also need to relocate their OE
    message store, address book, Word templates, Zone Alarm config file etc.
    etc.

    I'm not sure sure if there is a 'correct' answer here. With good maintenance
    practices and regular backups I think the decision to partition or not is a
    personal choice (absent a second operating system.)

    Rocky

     
    Rocket J. Squirrel, Feb 23, 2004
    #12
  13. Will

    Miro Guest


    It is not the swap file that is the problem - IMHO the problem is entirely
    this

    1/ Data files and system swap files get fragmented leaving Photoshop with
    non-contiguous cache areas.

    2/ NT4, Win2000, XP all have inherited an intolerance for 99.99% disk usage.
    It is a known bug in the kernel of the OS from the original DEC OS port. As
    you know ..... PS can take all the space and still keep asking for more

    3/ A second drive is ok, so long as it isnt an IDE slave. The presence of a
    slave kills the performance of the software

    4/ Inadequate ram installation makes the PS cache larger leading to problem
    #2

    5/ Any inherent faults in the FAT table will be compounded by Photoshop. If
    you intend to use PS then perform a Windows check of the file tables. An
    unstable Windows installation doesnt get more stable when running photoshop.

    6/ Photoshop is not compatible with accelerators or add-on memory managers
    sometimes seen loaded with 3D gaming setups. The best way to run photoshop
    is with Gigs of ram and on a twin or quad processor setup running a generic
    install of the OS. Any extra booster technology doesnt actually do anything
    profound.

    In most cases the hard drive is the victim and Photoshop is the suspect, but
    there is no basis for this assumption. A lot more has to be stuffed before
    that will happen.
     
    Miro, Feb 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Will

    Unknown Guest

    Forgive me for saying this as I am not having a go at anything or anyone but
    wouldn't the possible problem between OS9 and OS10 be that, at the outset,
    OS10 was a real big problem all on it's own and nothing at all to do with
    PS?
     
    Unknown, Feb 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Will

    Unknown Guest

    Have you checked out if a RAID makes a difference there? What about SATA and
    PATA?
    photoshop.

    Checked out NTFS to see if any differences there, too?
    Well that bit I actually CAN comment on with some experience. Used PS with
    accelerators under WIN98 and XP Home and never seen that to be a problem. I
    can only assume that PS for Windows either disables the accelerator when
    loaded and enables when exited or doesnt have a problem with most
    accelerators using Geforce. Havent used it with ATI yet though.
    There is one thing you can do to get over this problem. Real time mirror
    imaging. Have you any experience with PS and that running?
     
    Unknown, Feb 23, 2004
    #15
  16. Will

    Leythos Guest

    This happens on ALL OS's and is not a problem for any OS or application.
    It just means that the data takes a little longer to get to/from the
    drive and to/from memory.
    I've run PS since the Windows 95 days and run it now on my Windows XP
    Professional workstations and laptops. It has migrated with W98, W98SE,
    Win NT 4, Win 2000, and now with XP Prof. I started with PS 4 and
    currently use PS 6.

    There is NO problem with the OS.
    This is not true, it is a Myth. A second drive is actually highly
    recommended - use of a second drive with the TEMP space, Swap File, and
    other temp type items (including the PS worker space) will dramatically
    increase your performance when memory is low and when reading/writing on
    a busy image or computer. It's a simple fact that if you can read from
    drive 0 and not have to move the R/W heads for some other system call,
    that the performance will increase.
    Inadequate RAM on any computer is a problem for ANY application.
    FAT has nothing to do with it - any problems with the FAT will be seen
    by all applications that read/write data. In more than 10 years I've
    never had a problem with PS that was drive related.
    100% agree with this. I run with a single P4 and 512MB of ram on a
    workstation that edits web based images with no problem or swapping at
    all. I have a Dual P4 Xeon with 8gb of RAM for doing photo's and other
    images.
    You can't blame PS, if that was the case you could blame anything that
    makes use of swap space or temp space - it's simply not the drive or the
    OS or PS that's at fault. PS does not do direct writes to the drive.

    So far, PS has been stable on every machine I've used and for those of
    us that use it in the different departments. If you are having drive
    corruption problems you need to look elsewhere.
     
    Leythos, Feb 23, 2004
    #16
  17. Will

    Scott Coutts Guest

    I've run all versions of photoshop since 6, and i've never had a
    problem. There have been some references to XP and 3D accellerators
    causing problems. I certainly have had no problems there, and I've
    always run Photoshop on a card capable of hardware accelleration. The 3D
    hardware might not help, but the 2D certainly does. Besides, you cant
    get a card these days that doesnt have hardware accelleration!

    The main benefit of using a seperate drive for photoshop swap space is a
    speed improvement, as is the case with any swap space, be it windows,
    unix, photoshop or whatever...

    Scott.
     
    Scott Coutts, Feb 23, 2004
    #17
  18. Will

    Scott Coutts Guest

    True, but I think many an OS have the same problem! Not that you'd be
    running PS on it, but I've certainly seen various flavours of UNIX go
    down when the swap space does the same! You can see it about to happen
    some times... the little task-bar swap space meter starts climbing, and
    then it hits the top of the bar graph and zap... it's all over :)

    There's not really any excuse for filling them to the brim anyway, I
    reckon! Well, unless it's not your computer, or the boss wont spring
    $100 for another drive! :)
    Yeah, the FAT system is crap anyway. If it's running on NT or XP, it
    should be running NTFS in my opinion.
    Do you mean video accelerators? I definitely dont think that's true. It
    works fine with pretty much any card on the market. You'd be
    hard-pressed to find a non-accelerated card these days anyway. Even if
    you did, it would be so painfully slow that youd ditch it pretty quickly.
    True, but I think it's also a luxury. 'The more the merrier' of course,
    but you can do perfectly well with a 'normal' high end PC, i.e., single
    processor with a decent amount of RAM. But in terms of extra hardware,
    the non-3D components of the video acceleration certainly make a difference.
    Yes, I think this is the crux of it. Photoshop may indirectly cause the
    system to fail, but only because it is very resource intensive while it
    runs. I think if the people with the problems had run any other resource
    hungry programs, rather than PS, they would still have encountered the
    problem.
     
    Scott Coutts, Feb 23, 2004
    #18
  19. Will

    Miro Guest


    **** As I dont use software raid then I dont see the difference. All volumes
    are transparent in hardware raid.






    ***** NTFS has a FAT table too. FAT = file allocation table. If you want to
    see XP repair it just hard reset randomly 3 or 4 times. I dont know why
    people think that FAT is non existant. Apple has one too.





    **** How does a 3D card accelerate a bitmap ? It doesnt. The clock and cpu
    on the video card is where the redraw muscle is. The GLINT drivers are just
    banana skins at best.



    **** Mirror imaging under PS ? That is a fresh idea. I cant say I ever
    thought of doing it to see what happens. Seem to recall something about
    ignoble science and the patron Saint of lost causes.
     
    Miro, Feb 23, 2004
    #19
  20. Will

    k Guest


    thge matrox G450 G500's are still available!

    running a G450 dual in my imaging machine.

    k
     
    k, Feb 24, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.