I Had My Hard Disc Replaced, Now I Have 2 Hard Disc Drives. Why?

[how241]

When my computer stopped working, I went to Tuk Com. They told me my hard drive failed and replaced it with a 500 GB hard Drive. Also they installed Windows 7. Now when I go to 'My Computer', I see 2 hard drives disc listed there. Before I always only had one showing. The two listed drives are : Windows7(C:) 150GB, and Local Disc(D:) 315GB. Why the two separate hard drives ? Also the Window7(C:) drive is filling up quickly with only 40 GB remaining. The Local Disc(D:) drive is 100% empty. Should I be storing thing in the empty Local Disc(D:) drive ?? If so, how would I do that ?? Also, when the Windows7(C:) drive is full, will data automatically go into the empty Local Disc(D:) drive. Thank you for any help with this. I am Not very experienced with computers as my many questions indicate. I am also slightly afraid to go back to ask Tuk Com for help because many times there is a problem with the tech speaking English well enough for me to understand.

[Crossy]

They partitioned the drive, some people like it that way, I don't.

W7 has the tools in Disk Management (Control Panel => System => Create and format hard disk partitions) to remove the second partition and expand your C: to fill the whole drive if you wish.

Perhaps someone could spend the time to explain how, it's not difficult and Google is your friend.

[how241]

They partitioned the drive, some people like it that way, I don't.

W7 has the tools in Disk Management (Control Panel => System => Create and format hard disk partitions) to remove the second partition and expand your C: to fill the whole drive if you wish.

Perhaps someone could spend the time to explain how, it's not difficult and Google is your friend.

Thanks...I found some good info on Google. Thanks.

http://www.andyrathbone.com/2010/01/06/managing-disk-space-by-deleting-one-partition-and-expanding-another/

[ignis]

Over the years talking to Thais, it would appear if there is a OS problem, no one looks at it or tries to sort it out......... Normal is to clear the hard drive and install the OS fresh on a clean drive...

Therefore it appear the norm here to have a small 'C' drive for the OS, and then all the Folders. Pictures, videos, games, documents, are on the 2nd drive = you still have them if a re-install is needed...

Maybe also to do with many have the 100 baht CD with there OS........ of course there is no updates, so they spend another 100 baht 2 or 3 times a year to install a up-to-date OS version.

[whybother]

Put all you data (documents, music, pictures, email, downloads, etc) on the D drive and install your programs on the C drive.

When you do a back up, you only need to back up your data.

Seeing as you need to reinstall your programs if you did have disk problems again, or if you changed computers, there is no real need to back up the installed programs.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Edited September 10, 2012 by whybother

[canuckamuck]

I have always partitioned my main drive. I keep the OS and programs on C: and all my files on D: or on other drives.

I got into this habit after a particularly inconvenient crash left me with out crucial files for my business. Now if C: gets hit by something, I still have my stuff on D. Although these days a I rely on externals for the most part.

Anyhow I never like having irreplaceable stuff on C:

[ITGabs]

I have always partitioned my main drive. I keep the OS and programs on C: and all my files on D: or on other drives.

I got into this habit after a particularly inconvenient crash left me with out crucial files for my business. Now if C: gets hit by something, I still have my stuff on D. Although these days a I rely on externals for the most part.

Anyhow I never like having irreplaceable stuff on C:

+1

is generally a good practice for many reasons:

Performance:

1.- The first partition of the HDD is so much faster than the second part, boot files load faster.

2.- Keeping the OS isolated in one unit and the data in another keep the MFT fresh and with a lower percentage of errors and fragmentation.

Data Recovery:

1.- Windows OS usually fail a lot, and so much than Linux or Mac, is normal to format and make a new install from zero, so if the data is mixed with the OS is quite complite and slow to find

2.- Backup/restore or a virtualization of the OS is so much faster in a small unit.

3.- Problems with the file system chkdsk /f its faster to run in small unit.

4.- ...and the worst "bad clusters in c:!" running chkdsk /r it's pretty bad in big disks, a bad cluster or data loss check, can run for more than 24 hours without any access to the HDD, and sometimes fail and you need to check again from zero!

This is good practice also for servers with RAID systems and VMs

Edited September 10, 2012 by ITGabs

[Sayonarax]

Your drivse split. There's still one physical drive in ya PC.

[IMA_FARANG]

I have a 7 or 8 year old Toshiba laptop (yeh, I know that's ancient).

I have physically seperate C and D drives.

The C drive is 50 GB, the D drive is 300 GB.

Toshiba originally installed my OS on C drive.

MonkeyShaft...oh I'm sorry that should be MicroSoft.... and many other programs that use the MicroSoft OS seem to assume their program will naturally just install itself on your C drive.

Must be plenty of room there, right?

Of course it's usually possible to do a "custom installation" and install new software to a D drive....but there's often a warning not to do this "custom installation".

I usually ignore that warning...and install whatever programs I can on D drive.

But, at least in my Toshiba....you can't extend/combine C and D drive partitions...because the two drives are physically seperate internal drives.

Programs that insist on being installed on C drive....I won't use them unless they are very important.

Not many of that type are that important to me.

Edited September 10, 2012 by IMA_FARANG

[JSixpack]

I have always partitioned my main drive. I keep the OS and programs on C: and all my files on D: or on other drives.

I got into this habit after a particularly inconvenient crash left me with out crucial files for my business. Now if C: gets hit by something, I still have my stuff on D. Although these days a I rely on externals for the most part.

Anyhow I never like having irreplaceable stuff on C:

+1

is generally a good practice for many reasons:

Performance:

1.- The first partition of the HDD is so much faster than the second part, boot files load faster.

2.- Keeping the OS isolated in one unit and the data in another keep the MFT fresh and with a lower percentage of errors and fragmentation.

Data Recovery:

1.- Windows OS usually fail a lot, and so much than Linux or Mac, is normal to format and make a new install from zero, so if the data is mixed with the OS is quite complite and slow to find

2.- Backup/restore or a virtualization of the OS is so much faster in a small unit.

3.- Problems with the file system chkdsk /f its faster to run in small unit.

4.- ...and the worst "bad clusters in c:!" running chkdsk /r it's pretty bad in big disks, a bad cluster or data loss check, can run for more than 24 hours without any access to the HDD, and sometimes fail and you need to check again from zero!

This is good practice also for servers with RAID systems and VMs

-1

is generally unnecessary and even undesirable for many reasons:

Performance:

1.- Put all files on the faster first and only partition. Good defrag programs puts boot files and most used files in optimal locations. Means less wear on the drive.

2.- No need for multiple MFT tables and it gets defragged anyway when a defragger is run

Data Recovery:

1.- Windows OS doesn't fail a lot, is almost never necessary to reinstall, and anyway you can reinstall it without harming your data anyway. Nobody mixes data in the OS directories. Windows knows what files belongs to the OS. Besides, you have a backup of your data. Otherwise, you're vulnerable to the biggest danger, disk failure. Also, users w/ multiple partitions typically forget to put data on the data partition and it gets mixed up anyway. It's much less convenient to have multiple (unnecessary) partitions.

2.- Backup/restore or a virtualization of the OS is so much faster in a small unit except most users will want to backup their data in the image (music and video files being exceptions, but can be excluded from the image--as can any other folder) so that if the entire drive fails, the data can be restored at the same time as the OS and programs. And it avoids the illusion that by backing up the OS you're safe from the need of frequent data backup.

3.- Problems with the NTFS file system are rare, and though chkdsk /f its faster to run in small unit, you can't count on errors being confined to the small unit and should check the large one as well. So, just do it all at once w/ one partition. Some disk checking programs are faster than others.

I agree w/ Crossy above.I only use one partition, have for many years, and it's so much more convenient. The old multiple partition strategy that is a hangover from Windows 98 (it was great then) no longer serves much purpose. It's mostly a religious issue now. So I won't argue it further; I've done so before on this forum.

You can start reading about the disadvantages here: http://en.wikipedia....iple_partitions

[how241]

Good info here. Thanks to all posters.

[canuckamuck]

I have always partitioned my main drive. I keep the OS and programs on C: and all my files on D: or on other drives.

I got into this habit after a particularly inconvenient crash left me with out crucial files for my business. Now if C: gets hit by something, I still have my stuff on D. Although these days a I rely on externals for the most part.

Anyhow I never like having irreplaceable stuff on C:

+1

is generally a good practice for many reasons:

Performance:

1.- The first partition of the HDD is so much faster than the second part, boot files load faster.

2.- Keeping the OS isolated in one unit and the data in another keep the MFT fresh and with a lower percentage of errors and fragmentation.

Data Recovery:

1.- Windows OS usually fail a lot, and so much than Linux or Mac, is normal to format and make a new install from zero, so if the data is mixed with the OS is quite complite and slow to find

2.- Backup/restore or a virtualization of the OS is so much faster in a small unit.

3.- Problems with the file system chkdsk /f its faster to run in small unit.

4.- ...and the worst "bad clusters in c:!" running chkdsk /r it's pretty bad in big disks, a bad cluster or data loss check, can run for more than 24 hours without any access to the HDD, and sometimes fail and you need to check again from zero!

This is good practice also for servers with RAID systems and VMs

-1

is generally unnecessary and even undesirable for many reasons:

Performance:

1.- Put all files on the faster first and only partition. Good defrag programs puts boot files and most used files in optimal locations. Means less wear on the drive.

2.- No need for multiple MFT tables and it gets defragged anyway when a defragger is run

Data Recovery:

1.- Windows OS doesn't fail a lot, is almost never necessary to reinstall, and anyway you can reinstall it without harming your data anyway. Nobody mixes data in the OS directories. Windows knows what files belongs to the OS. Besides, you have a backup of your data. Otherwise, you're vulnerable to the biggest danger, disk failure. Also, users w/ multiple partitions typically forget to put data on the data partition and it gets mixed up anyway. It's much less convenient to have multiple (unnecessary) partitions.

2.- Backup/restore or a virtualization of the OS is so much faster in a small unit except most users will want to backup their data in the image (music and video files being exceptions, but can be excluded from the image--as can any other folder) so that if the entire drive fails, the data can be restored at the same time as the OS and programs. And it avoids the illusion that by backing up the OS you're safe from the need of frequent data backup.

3.- Problems with the NTFS file system are rare, and though chkdsk /f its faster to run in small unit, you can't count on errors being confined to the small unit and should check the large one as well. So, just do it all at once w/ one partition. Some disk checking programs are faster than others.

I agree w/ Crossy above.I only use one partition, have for many years, and it's so much more convenient. The old multiple partition strategy that is a hangover from Windows 98 (it was great then) no longer serves much purpose. It's mostly a religious issue now. So I won't argue it further; I've done so before on this forum.

You can start reading about the disadvantages here: http://en.wikipedia....iple_partitions

It's true I started doing this with Windows 98, and thought it was the way to go and never changed. So probably I won't partition my next main drive. i keep all my data on externals now anyway. wisdom from J 6-pack, as always

[whybother]

The main reason I have separate drives is because it's easier to back up data. There is no need (in fact often it's pointless) backing up the OS or installed programs.

I'll cede to the posts above re: performance.

[SpaceKadet]

I have always partitioned my main drive. I keep the OS and programs on C: and all my files on D: or on other drives.

I got into this habit after a particularly inconvenient crash left me with out crucial files for my business. Now if C: gets hit by something, I still have my stuff on D. Although these days a I rely on externals for the most part.

Anyhow I never like having irreplaceable stuff on C:

+1

is generally a good practice for many reasons:

Performance:

1.- The first partition of the HDD is so much faster than the second part, boot files load faster.

2.- Keeping the OS isolated in one unit and the data in another keep the MFT fresh and with a lower percentage of errors and fragmentation.

Data Recovery:

1.- Windows OS usually fail a lot, and so much than Linux or Mac, is normal to format and make a new install from zero, so if the data is mixed with the OS is quite complite and slow to find

2.- Backup/restore or a virtualization of the OS is so much faster in a small unit.

3.- Problems with the file system chkdsk /f its faster to run in small unit.

4.- ...and the worst "bad clusters in c:!" running chkdsk /r it's pretty bad in big disks, a bad cluster or data loss check, can run for more than 24 hours without any access to the HDD, and sometimes fail and you need to check again from zero!

This is good practice also for servers with RAID systems and VMs

-1

is generally unnecessary and even undesirable for many reasons:

Performance:

1.- Put all files on the faster first and only partition. Good defrag programs puts boot files and most used files in optimal locations. Means less wear on the drive.

2.- No need for multiple MFT tables and it gets defragged anyway when a defragger is run

Data Recovery:

1.- Windows OS doesn't fail a lot, is almost never necessary to reinstall, and anyway you can reinstall it without harming your data anyway. Nobody mixes data in the OS directories. Windows knows what files belongs to the OS. Besides, you have a backup of your data. Otherwise, you're vulnerable to the biggest danger, disk failure. Also, users w/ multiple partitions typically forget to put data on the data partition and it gets mixed up anyway. It's much less convenient to have multiple (unnecessary) partitions.

2.- Backup/restore or a virtualization of the OS is so much faster in a small unit except most users will want to backup their data in the image (music and video files being exceptions, but can be excluded from the image--as can any other folder) so that if the entire drive fails, the data can be restored at the same time as the OS and programs. And it avoids the illusion that by backing up the OS you're safe from the need of frequent data backup.

3.- Problems with the NTFS file system are rare, and though chkdsk /f its faster to run in small unit, you can't count on errors being confined to the small unit and should check the large one as well. So, just do it all at once w/ one partition. Some disk checking programs are faster than others.

I agree w/ Crossy above.I only use one partition, have for many years, and it's so much more convenient. The old multiple partition strategy that is a hangover from Windows 98 (it was great then) no longer serves much purpose. It's mostly a religious issue now. So I won't argue it further; I've done so before on this forum.

You can start reading about the disadvantages here: http://en.wikipedia....iple_partitions

-1 on JSixpack (does that mean +1 on ITGabs?)

Just read the paragraph above in the link for the benefits of multiple partitions. With the mainline hard drives in the range of 2-3TB I would be very weary of storing everything in one partition. I have gone one further, and since couple of years I would install the OS on a small but the fastest hard drive I could afford. And my data on a separate large, but not necessarily fast. Preferably in RAID1 configuration.

Personally, I have never been in favour of "My this.." and "My other..." data constructs of Microsoft, and prefer to store my data in a way that is meaningful to me and way outside of OS.

Of course, in a professional IT environment, there has always been a clear separation between code and data, but we generally do have plenty of hard drives to play with

[ITGabs]

Jsixpack Agree that disagree, I was objecting some points but I lost my content :/ ...but in short I am 30% disagree only, since are different points of view and almost all your arguments are valid for me too.

I think the link to Wikipedia is great to understand the pros and cons of having one big disk vs. a partitioned disk.

1 Benefits of multiple partitions

2 Disadvantages of multiple partitions

Cheers!

[JSixpack]

I could see having your OS--and programs if you can afford one large enough--on an SSD, as I'm sure some of our members have. I'll need for prices to fall a lot further.

Edited September 10, 2012 by JSixpack

[sysardman]

I have always partitioned my main drive. I keep the OS and programs on C: and all my files on D: or on other drives.

I got into this habit after a particularly inconvenient crash left me with out crucial files for my business. Now if C: gets hit by something, I still have my stuff on D. Although these days a I rely on externals for the most part.

Anyhow I never like having irreplaceable stuff on C:

OK I'm just trying to hit 700 posts but for my two penneth, having 2 partitions under Windows makes no sense at all. To start, if your disk crashes you will probably lose both anyway. If you are lucky and just need to reinstall the OS then the stupid MS registry makes a nonsense of having a true integrated OS + data system. The partition scheme only works best under Unix/Linux where you can mount a seperate data partition at boot time under /usr or /usr/mnt or whatever you want to call it and the OS is very happy indeed. You can install, re-install or upgrade the OS as many times as you want and if you mount your data partition in the same spot the OS will never complain.