Notebook UPGRADE

[stats]

Dear all,

I am currently using Belta Notebook,

BELTA MOLLIS MINI164

INTEL CENTRINO PENTIUM M

(1.6GHZ 2MB L2 CACHE 400 MHZ FSB)

INTEL 855 GME CHIPSET

RAM 512MB DDR-SO-DIMM

INTERGRATED INTEL EXTREME GRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY

HARD DISK 40GB

My question are...Can i upgrade my Hardisk to 60GB and still be using the existing ones??? currently my hardisk are in drives c:>20G and d:>20GB

Can i add another HD or i must sacrifies one of the drive to put in another larger drives..

and can i add upgrade to a ATI MOBILITY RADEON9600 DDR 64 MB DISPLAY CARD???

[Firefoxx]

There is only 1 place to put the harddisk inside the notebook. If you want to upgrade the internal harddisk, you have to replace it. You can ask the shop where you buy the harddisk to ghost the information from the old one. If you just want extra storage, you can buy an external harddisk.

In the future, there will be upgradeable graphics modules for notebooks. So, no, you can't upgrade. You have to buy a new notebook.

[Merlin]

as far as the video card goes, I think you're out of luck there. You can get an external hard drive - either firewire or USB. I think the Belta has both connections...

Edited January 24, 2005 by Merlin

[chanchao]

I'd just get the 40 Gb replaced with a 80 or 120 or higher capacity drive. Then put the old 40 Gb in some external USB 2.0 casing so you can use it as external storage, or when traveling.

Oh, and next time make sure they don't divide up a nice drive in silly 20 Gb sized partitions. There really is no point in doing that. For some reason shops in Thailand still do that. You just get a bigger chance that you'll run out of space on either partition, versus no benefit whatsoever. (Exceptions would be if you run multiple operating systems on the same machine, but... that's not likely)

[Firefoxx]

Well, there's still a use of dividing a drive into two partitions. The primary partition would be where you install programs, while the second partition would be where you keep your data and backups. When the time comes to do a reinstall of the OS (and that time will come), you just format the first partition. No need to save any data to floppies/cds, since it's already on the second partition.

[bkk_mike]

There's another reason for partitioning, and that's if you want to use FAT32. (which has a 32Gb limit), rather than NTFS, or create a partition solely for the use of the paging file, which can reduce disk fragmentation...

The only reason I can think of for using FAT32 is to have access to it when dual-booting another operating system. (i.e. Linux - I know Linux can read NTFS, but it can't write it...).

It can also be very useful if you have to flash a new bios though, as you can download the flash program and bios file to a directory just, and don't need to create a special boot floppy with the files on it, just use a standard DOS boot floppy and CD to the directory.

[chanchao]

> Well, there's still a use of dividing a drive into two partitions. The

> primary partition would be where you install programs, while

> the second partition would be where you keep your data and

> backups. When the time comes to do a reinstall of the OS (and

> that time will come), you just format the first partition.

Ok, but how is that different from just removing the \WINDOWS (and \PROGRAM FILES) folders and doing a re-install? I also think too many people have this urge to re-format the harddrive when all they want to do is re-install windows. Or just re-install into a different folder, even. It doesn't have to be named \WINDOWS, it can be called anything. (\WINXP for example)

And there's a huge benefit of not cutting up your free space over two logical drives.

> There's another reason for partitioning, and that's if you want to

> use FAT32. (which has a 32Gb limit), rather than NTFS,

Why would you want to use Fat32?? I thought that went out the door together with Win98/Me ?

> or create a partition solely for the use of the paging file,

> which can reduce disk fragmentation...

Okay, that's a fair example. In that case though you'd make that partition about the same size as your physical memory, say 512 MB or 1Gb, and then everthing else for Windows, programs and data. My guess though is that if you're that advanced, you'd likely have that page file on a completely separate drive? Some performance to be gained that way I think.

> It can also be very useful if you have to flash a new bios though,

> as you can download the flash program and bios file to a directory

> just, and don't need to create a special boot floppy

Boot floppies are also getting pretty ancient history.. I don't even have a floppy drive. New BIOS for my mainboard was just installed using the tool supplied by my mainboard manufactoror. (Asus) That worked straight from Windows in regular graphical mode.

[Firefoxx]

Most non-tech people would go for the "format and reinstall" route. They really don't have the knowledge of how to remove the system directories (which requires a boot disk/CD or other tool). They also don't know how to do anything beyond the normal default install. They also would choose this route if some persistant virus or trojan got into their machine. It's just the only way they know, not that they really like doing it.

For you and me, the techies, we could probably go the complicated route and make our machines do the moonwalk if we wanted to, but that's not true for the common Joe.

As for partitioning for the paging file, the purpose stated is for less fragmentation. Putting it on a separate physical drive gets the added benefit of being on a separate channel (hopefully). However, they're two different benefits, and the second is only possible if you have more than one drive, something not possible on a notebook.

As for FAT32, I think the reasons for using it were given. There was also an older post, where another person argued *for* Fat32 and *against* NTFS. I personally need and use NTFS.

May I humbly ask what the huge benefit of not partitioning (at all) is? It's a serious question, I honestly want to know. I know that partitioning like crazy (something done in the old days of 10GB drives and limited FAT clusters) is pointless today, but why not two partitions?

[chanchao]

> May I humbly ask what the huge benefit of not partitioning (at all) is?

The advantage is not running out of space. Like my wife's notebook came with two partitions on the 20 Gb drive, both 10 Gb I think. (It's a small drive of course but the principle remains the same; and 2 years ago 20 Gb was pretty huge for a laptop). Now everytime we install something, we have to be mindful of where to put it, or we run out of space on the C drive. Even though plenty of space is available on the D drive (partition), it will run out of space, Windows will gasp for air and die. Note that My Documents folder and pretty much anything else is already on D, but as you know, a lot of stuff ends up in the \Windows\System32 folder no matter where you install something. The thing is running SQL Server and .NET and stuff. (Yes, that's heavy, but the principle remains the same).

And I run into the problem when capturing video. Like I have 6 Gb free on C, and 8Gb free on D. Now I start capturing a DV tape... I will run out of space no matter what I do. However if I had everything in a contiguous 14 Gb I would have enough.

It's just headache. Honestly, if I saw even a tiny benefit in partitioning aside from the ones I already conceded (different OS's on the same machine, paging file) then I'd do it in a second. Actually, if you convince me then I will do it on my next computer or reinstall of something. I just don't see the benefit.

Oh yes: What currently seems a huge amount of space "Wow, a 40 Gb partition" will not seem so big anymore 3 years down the road. You WILL eat it all up. And then you run out of space, and Windows dies. A good example of an 'expert' who wants to partition stuff can be seen here: http://www.newlogic.co.uk/kbase/fdisk/page1.htm See? I bet at the time (5 years ago) a 2 Gb partition seemed huge. I think subconsciously people partition 'because they can' and 'because they know how'. I sit at parties and there's some Uncle there who knows enough to be dangerous, and going recommending people to partition their drives. Ugh.

It' almost like moving into a new, bigger house and going: "Wow, look at all this space. You know what I'm going to partition it right down the middle.". (!?!) I Googled around a bit and found arguments like "If you don't partition your drive, it will take hours to scan and defrag". Analogy --> If you don't partition your house, cleaning will take longer. Well hellooo..

I think it's rather ironic that people who worry about 'fragmentation' then 'solve' this but putting in the biggest, hardest, ridgedest fragmentation of all: a partition! If that's not fragmenting your free space then I don't know what is.

Cheers,

Chanchao

[chanchao]

One more uncle, this one works for PC World:

http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,73826,00.asp

Look what he states in his opening paragraph:

"No matter the capacity of your PC's hard drive, chances are that it's set up to function as one giant data dump. Though that's fine for most users, dividing your drive into multiple partitions (additional drive letters) can make life easier: At the least, keeping all your data--such as documents, worksheets, and images--in a partition separate from the operating system and applications simplifies backups and can increase your PC's performance."

Okay there's several things wrong with that. First of all the statement "It will keep your data separate from your OS and programs." I think this is nonsense, possibly coming from a subconscious control-freakish mindset. Like, what?! If I put my data and OS together then the OS will eat my data?? It doesn't. And: That's what folders are for; you keep your programs in one folder, and your documents in another. Windows already sets it up that way.

Oh but it makes backups easier. Really. Assuming you actually remember to always put your files on that special 'data' partition (and don't forget what's on your desktop screen!!) then backups are easier because you can just backup that whole partition. Whoopiedoo. HOW is that easier than just backing up your My Documents folder? (Or even "\Documents and Settings" folder? Note that that will ALSO backup your desktop, favorites, your Outlook.pst file and the like. )

Finally: Performance. Well hello, it's still the same physical drive. It really can't read or write from two partitions at the same time. (And, I'm less sure about the following, but if partitions are physically far apart it could even reduce performance. Say if your windows partition was in front, then some data partition and all the way at the end your paging file partition.. The drive head would be skipping from one end to the other all the time?)

Anyway, the article goes on for anther 6 pages, and at the end of it at least you have the knowledge to bore people at parties.

Edited January 26, 2005 by chanchao

[buadhai]

IMHO no need to partition these days. I think this practice became popular when raw drive sizes outpaced the BIOS's ability to address all the space. Now days this is never a problem and file systems have improved to the point where partitioning is a just a waste of time.

Of course, there are contrary arguments, many of which you've read above.

That said, there are situations in which partitioning can be useful. For example, you want to run several OS's (Windoze and Linux say) and would like them to boot from separate partions.

For the ordinary user, it's just not necessary.

[slimdog]

One of the main reasons for partitioning a hard drive is being able to run multiple operating systems and/or set ups on a single computer. For people working on either computer programing or web design it is essential that what you have done works, not only on your computer but on others with a different o/s or different versions of a program.

I must admit defragmenting with exceptionally large hard drives can be a pain. Certainly a 20 GB drive doesn't need partioning but some people with 80GB or larger may find it easier. One of the main pitfalls is that too many people think of their partitions as their main place of back up, which if the hard drive fails can lead to losing everything.

[Firefoxx]

I think I'll just concede this argument. It's one of those discussions that go along the neverending "Mac Vs PC" route, where people have their own (valid) ideas and are never able to find any common ground. What it all boils down to is "it works for me, so I do it".

[astral]

I would recommend the following partition sizes.

C: 4Mb Windows and swap file only

D: 4Mb Programmes only

E: The rest, with your data files.

If you are backing up you only need to back up E:

Reinstalling Windows, you can safely reformat C: and nothing else is lost.

All your programme parameters are on D: and will be picked up if you have to reinstall programmes.

On my desktop I have a 100Gb partition for video files, using NTFS.

[chanchao]

> I think I'll just concede this argument. It's one of those

> discussions that go along the neverending "Mac Vs PC" route,

> where people have their own (valid) ideas and are never able to find any

> common ground.

Shucks.. now where's the fun in that. Of course I do partition as I also run Linux on one of my drives.. Linux is really big on partitioning.

Astral wrote:

> Reinstalling Windows, you can safely reformat C: and nothing else is lost.

> All your programme parameters are on D: and will be picked up if you

> have to reinstall programmes.

Okay, if that is actually the case then *I* will concede and start partitioning. Because, aren't all program settings buried in the registry these days? And the registry would be on the Windows partition which would be overwritten... thus necessitating a re-install of things like MS Office from the regular installation CD, no different from when you actually also cleared the Programs partition?

Isn't it so that only tiny little tools and games would still run, as they don't use the registry to store any settings? It would probably be a good idea if MS separated the OS registry from the programs registry... (And managed (secure) access to the registry better.)

I guess what it comes down to is if you actually want to reformat C:.... Some people find that 'cleaner' I guess, like reformatting would make everything shiny and new and kill all viruses. On the other hand if you don't reformat and just remove your old Windows installation, then nothing is stopping you from just leaving your programs in place (they're in a completely separate folder from your OS after all in \Program Files); this would give you about the same situation as when you had a D: partition for programs which you left in place.

[bkk_mike]

The advantage is not running out of space. Like my wife's notebook came with two partitions on the 20 Gb drive, both 10 Gb I think.  (It's a small drive of course but the principle remains the same; and 2 years ago 20 Gb was pretty huge for a laptop).  Now everytime we install something, we have to be mindful of where to put it, or we run out of space on the C drive.  Even though plenty of space is available on the D drive (partition), it will run out of space, Windows will gasp for air and die.  Note that My Documents folder and pretty much anything else is already on D, but as you know, a lot of stuff ends up in the \Windows\System32 folder no matter where you install something.  The thing is running SQL Server and .NET and stuff.  (Yes, that's heavy, but the principle remains the same).

...

I think it's rather ironic that people who worry about 'fragmentation' then 'solve' this but putting in the biggest, hardest, ridgedest fragmentation of all: a partition!  If that's not fragmenting your free space then I don't know what is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you're running SQL Server on a notebook with a 20Gb hard disk - I assume it's just a hobby.

For a proper install of SQL Server - you should use the fastest drives you can get i.e. 10,000 rpm is normal on SATA drives in a desktop these days, but most notebook drives are just in the 4200 or 5400 rpm categories (Hitachi has a 7200 one, but it's still slower than a 7200 desktop drive simply because the physical disks are smaller, so the actual distance the head travels over is still smaller than on a desktop drive).

Also, you should ideally split data and log for each database onto separate physical drives, on separate IDE channels (if still using IDE), or separate SATA drives.

For anything serious, you're usually talking mirrored RAID arrays, but just from the fact that you're able to run on a notebook, it seems unlikely that it's a critical application.

Back to the original question of a good upgrade for your notebook though. - Performance-wise, there's probably only two things you can do.

First - upgrade the memory (but notebook manual comes out - or at least a search on Kingston's website for the model name, in order to find the right type of module.) - and you'll also need the manual to figure out how to install it - sometimes there's a section that opens out in the bottom of the notebook to give access to a memory slot (and sometimes it's occupied, so you have to take out the old memory when you put in new). - sometime you have to take the keyboard out.

Second - upgrade the hard drive. 100Gb and larger notebook drives are available, but if performance is what you're after the fastest drive currently is the Hitachi one I mentioned above, which is currently limited to 60Gb. (although it's been out a while, so a larger version shouldn't be far away). However, an internal drive upgrade will require the removal of your existing one, and re-installing all your applications.

The only way to add an extra drive to a notebook is with either a docking bay (where the docking bay can sometimes contain a desktop drive - but Belta's website doesn't appear to mention a docking bay), or with a USB or Firewire external drive (again, their website mentions the Mollis has USB2, but I saw no mention of firewire - but you've got the machine in front of you to confirm that.).

Edited January 26, 2005 by bkk_mike

[chanchao]

> If you're running SQL Server on a notebook with a 20Gb hard disk

> - I assume it's just a hobby.

Nope, application development and demoing. Not with a lot of data on it, of course. And: the slower the better, hate to develop on a really fast system only to find out the performance issues when going live on the client's hardware.

(It's possible it's a 30 Gb drive, not sure. In any case nothing really big to run a live production system)

Cheers,

Chanchao

[TizMe]

My wife's computer was formated so that it only had C: drive. While I was away, it developed a problem that required it going to the shop.

The "tecky" at the shop's solution was to reformat the hard drive, losing all the data, including some irreplacable digital photos.

If they had been on another partition, they may have been saved.

[bkk_mike]

> If you're running SQL Server on a notebook with a 20Gb hard disk

> - I assume it's just a hobby.

Nope, application development and demoing. Not with a lot of data on it, of course.  And: the slower the better, hate to develop on a really fast system only to find out the performance issues when going live on the client's hardware.

(It's possible it's a 30 Gb drive, not sure. In any case nothing really big to run a live production system)

Cheers,

Chanchao

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've still got to be careful developing on the same box as the server is running on as you've obviously got no network latency delays when using things like cursors that you would get in real-life (i.e. with the server running on one computer, and the users running the application on another, stored procedure calls, or even batched SQL is better than using a cursor within the application itself.)

[buadhai]

If they had been on another partition, they may have been saved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And, if they had a backup they definitely would have been saved.

The price of an external drive is so low now that there is no excuse not to do regular backups, especially when "irreplacable" data is involved.

I have an external Firewire drive that cost just over a hundred bucks. An automatic, bootable backup of my internal drive is make to the external drive nightly.

In addition, I burn "irreplaceable" data to CD's on a regular basis.

Best not to depend on partitioning to protect data....