Computer Has Slowed Down

[elkangorito]

My comments are in the colour Blue.

The amount of 'slowdown' experienced by accessing more than one partition is negligable & hardly noticeable considering the RPM & 'burst rates' of modern HDD's.

I quite agree. The point really is that extra partitions don't give you any speed advantage, hence negating one of the reasons cited for having them in the first place.

The 'speed advantage' that I speak about is not something that relates to 'suddenly breaking the sound barrier' stuff. What I speak about is a 'maintained performance over a longer period of time due to the reduced rate of drive fragmentation'. Bear in mind that 'performance' does not only relate to speed...it also incorporates reduced maintenance & increased reliability. You don'y seem to acknowledge reliability.

In the meantime, I guess we'll just wait & see who starts whining about lost data due to having only one partition & perhaps a virus (or similar) invading the system. If the system is rendered partly or totally inaccessible due to this invasion, then formatting the drive & re-installing the OS is the only solution.

It all depends on the virus. In many cases a cleanup of system files and registry restore are all that's needed. In an extreme case, the other extra partitions will have to be wiped anyway, because the infection will spread over to them as well. Which is to say, extra partitions don't really buy you more security. And so you yourself illustrate exactly my point I made earlier: partitioning is dangerous because it gives you the illusion that you are safer, when in fact you aren't, and so you then may fail to take proper measures (image/incremental backup to another drive or CD/DVD etc.) that will ensure safety with reasonable predictability.

For safety, there is nothing like 'backing up' regularly...as we both say. When I say that viruses tend to attack the OS, I mean that generally viruses tend to attack FILES in the OS (a usual target). The next usual targets are 'document' related files, the extensions of which can be .doc, .txt, .rtf etc. The good thing is that these type of infections are easily picked up during a virus scan. The most dangerous viruses these days tend to be Trojans, which don't disable the OS but do place themselves onto the 'C' drive easily...since the 'C' drive exists on everybody's computer. It is highly unlikely that a trojan will be placed upon another drive unless of course the operator has no idea about 'file management'. This all goes back to the 'learning 2 keystrokes' affair. Such an unwarranted effort.

..even if the required data is backed up. Maybe the offending Virus/Malware/Spyware/ are backed up onto the removable media? This will be fun to deal with once it has been re-installed onto your 'C' drive, won't it!! Viruses normally attack the operating system, which resides on 'C' drive.

Are you sure you're aware that your extra partitions are ALSO on the 'C' drive?

Do you know the difference between a 'Logical' drive & a 'physical' drive? Do you know the difference between a 'Primary' partition & an 'Extended' partition? Please explain why you believe that "your extra partitions are ALSO on the 'C' drive"!

Of course, as has been said, you could fork out $ for 'imaging software' (again, copying any Virus/Spyware/Malware), which only works if your HDD is big enough. If it isn't big enough, fork out more $ for a bigger HDD so that you can fully utilise the imaging software.

Yep, if you want safety, you have to pay for safety, in computers as in anything else. Why should you expect a free lunch? Having said that, however, here are two FREE imaging programs:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Back-U...vImagerXP.shtml

http://damien.guibouret.free.fr/en/index_frame.html

and a free cloning program:

http://www.xxclone.com/

Now, here would be a rational use for an extra partition: if you don't have another HD, use an extra partition on your main drive for holding an image of your main partition. OEMs use this technique all the time with their hidden "restore" partitions. The image could then be split if need be and backed up to CD/DVDs.

At the end of the day, multi-partitioning combined with learning "2 extra keystrokes" will go a long way to preserving your data & save you money, since you will have less need for imaging software & consequently, a bigger HDD.

You will always have need for an imaging program if you want to preserve your present system, configuration, and data in their entirety at a particular point in time. You see, the day will always come when your HD will crash beyond repair. You have a choice, which you must make in advance, as to how much you will have lost on that day.

In this case, both of us agree...backing up is the only possible solution for this given situation. BUT, if your data is on another partition, away from the 'C' drive, you stand a better chance of backing up 'clean' data.

If one can't be bothered to learn 2 extra keystrokes, then one should either not have a computer or instead, have a lot of time, patience & money for the resulting inconveniences.

Or, one can have a computer and skip the 2 extra keystrokes, spend time more productively, and not be under any illusions that extra partitioning is going to be helpful in any significant way.

Sorry. I wasn't aware that 2 extra keystrokes were so unproductive & time wasting! Obviously, the braincells involved in this extreme learning curve, are not present in the average human.

Nor did it prevent a virus being backed up onto the removable media as well...which is yet another problem, since most viruses attack the OS.

Yep, you only backup when you think you've got a clean installation. This is why you do a baseline backup after first installation w/ major programs, and then do incremental backups thereafter. If one incremental backup has the virus, you rollback to the one before that. BTW, this is one of the disadvantages of mirroring--you just mirror the virus as well.

My sister's problem was that she only had 1 drive...'C' drive, from which she backed up. This was the drive upon which the viruses chose to reside. She now backs up from 'E' drive, where there are no OS files whatsoever. By the way, learning 2 extra keystrokes is exponentially easier than learning/understanding 'incremental back ups', as well as 'roll backs'....all these extra keystokes here. Isn't 'mirroring' the same as 'cloning' or is the same thing as 'imaging' a drive?

Because she insisted upon using Outlook Express, her computer was infected on 5 separate occassions. On each occassion, the computer was rendered inoperable (or the virus couldn't be removed) & the OS had to be re-installed. On the 5th occassion, I told her that I would refuse to do this again for her unless she allowed me to set up multi partitions & stop using Outlook Express. She submitted & has not had any problems since.

Millions of users use Outlook Express yet they don't contract viruses. Her problem, actually, was that of opening unknown attachments, leaving HTML turned on, lack of email virus scanning, lack of security patch updating, and lack of spam control. She should also have had a good registry backup from an uninfected time--but average users don't usually have that. I'm granting you the likelihood that the viruses came in via email rather than from other sources.

Thanks for answering this one for me. You're right. She didn't know what she was doing. Nor did she know anything about the ultimate workings of an email client...much the same as MOST USERS don't know about such a thing. Most people who use an email client aren't aware that their exposure to viruses are by far escalated because they use an email client. Consequently, not many of them are aware that they obtained a virus because they use an email client. My sister WAS one of these people. She did, however, have good anti virus software but it didn't do much good in this case. Again, if users knew about the software they were using, they would have less problems. In the meantime, since most users don't know about email clients, the best advice to give someone is DON'T USE AN EMAIL CLIENT. As for a 'Registry back-up', thats more than 2 keystrokes & obviously takes more braincells to understand. Actually, it requires "simple" file management skills to understand.

In any case, if you open a virus, it doesn't matter how many partitions you have, you have got the virus and partitions per se are not going to stop it or make any difference in anything, except to complicate data recovery if it attacks the partition table. Now, if it's a virus that also attacks Outlook Express (as many of them do) then you obviously have a problem w/ your Outlook Express--no matter how many partitions you have. In sum, partitioning is just totally irrelevant here.

On the contrary, with every single client (100%) of my'n who has suffered a virus attack (& failed to back-up there data), I was able to format the 'C' drive & re-install the OS without any detrimental affect whatsoever to their data, which was SAFE on 'E' drive. Mind you, they are now becoming quite serious about 'File Management'.

Also, instead of spending 1 hour once a month to Defrag the computer, she now only has to defrag it about once every 6 to 8 months...if that. And the speed difference is not noticeable...as with my computer.

If she defrags the whole disk, the time will be about the same whether she has one or more partitions. Files get fragmented no matter where they are. Instead of spending 1 hour per month, she now spends 1 hour every 6 to 8 momths. How can you say that this is a similar time period/process? She may now be ignoring the system partition so that the defragger doesn't look there. She does not. That's not necessarily good, because writes still happen on that partition. But in any case you defrag at night or when the computer is going to be idle for a few hours, once a month or so, so if she gains a little, it doesn't much matter at all. Certainly not enough to warrant bothering about extra partitions.

You obviously don't want to understand about 'performance' or 'maintenance'. And strangely, you seem to be happy to endorse spending extra hours 'maintaining' a computer but not 2 seconds learning about 2 extra keystrokes, which could save you more than hours.

Placing your data on a separate partitions IS SAFER, cheaper & solves many problems. It reduces the need for maintenance & therefore maintains a more 'level' computer performance for a longer time.

Sorry, but you just haven't made that case at all, though you do seem intent on continuing to believe in it. It seems to be an instance of a solution looking for a problem. See my original post for how it's actually a bit more DANGEROUS, esp. w/ regards to the illusion of safety. Lack of proper safety can end up being very expensive indeed if the computer is used for business purposes.

But I trust everyone's gotten educated a bit on partitions by now, and there should be enough info here for people to decide about it for themselves.

Edited April 6, 2006 by elkangorito

[JSixpack]

What I speak about is a 'maintained performance over a longer period of time due to the reduced rate of drive fragmentation'.

In which case (a special personal definition), your argument still fails because partitioning per se doesn't even affect drive fragmentation except to relocate some of it . Which is cool, I guess, just not particularly useful. Certainly it has nothing to do with any "rate".

The most dangerous viruses these days tend to be Trojans, which don't disable the OS but do place themselves onto the 'C' drive easily.

How insulting to the intelligence of our best virus authors! Nah, the most dangerous viruses are by no means so utterly stupid. They go for legitimate targets wherever, have not the least respect for partitions. Suffice it to say that I would never advise someone to feel safe and secure from viruses because his OS is on a separate partition. Not surprisingly, such a "technique" is never cited in the antivir literature.

BUT, if your data is on another partition, away from the 'C' drive, you stand a better chance of backing up 'clean' data.

Nope, I really wouldn't count on that at all. I suppose we'll just have agree to disagree. There are lots of things to do, however, that might really improve your chances of maintaining clean data, as discussed here:

http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2....emoving_Malware

and here:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=27971

Snake oil and quack remedies, though, I just don't need, sorry.

As for a 'Registry back-up', thats more than 2 keystrokes & obviously takes more braincells to understand. Actually, it requires "simple" file management skills to understand.

No, registry backups can easily be done automatically at boot up with no user intervention. Here's a fine utility for that:

http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/

(Maybe the best link I've given you. If you repair computers, you'll want to install it on all your clients' machines. You're welcome.)

Windows System Restore does some of this automatically as well.

On the contrary, with every single client (100%) of my'n who has suffered a virus attack (& failed to back-up there data), I was able to format the 'C' drive & re-install the OS without any detrimental affect whatsoever to their data, which was SAFE on 'E' drive. Mind you, they are now becoming quite serious about 'File Management'.

What this merely means is that their data was safe from YOU and your unnecessary reformatting. I don't see here that you made any backup prior to the reformat either. If you just deleted the Windows directory, would that have done? In either case you would get the system files. (Even though you don't need to do that either.) And why stop at deleting/reformatting? What about overwriting?

So, yes, I'll concede: if you were my computer tech, I do think this might be reason enough to have extra partitions.

Instead of spending 1 hour per month, she now spends 1 hour every 6 to 8 momths. How can you say that this is a similar time period/process?

Easily, because you have a tendentious argument based on anecdote. I can decide to run defrag weekly, monthly, or yearly. So? Maybe it takes about one hour to defrag whether she does it at 1 month or at 6 month intervals. I can see how this could be true if she just uses her computer for basics. I doubt she consciously tells her defragger to ignore certain partitions, and why should she? Writes and deletes, hence fragmentation, still happen on all the partitions unless one is truly just a static archive; and the analysis phase of the defragger would find no fragmentation there very quickly, probably in seconds. Furthermore her computer usage may have changed: she no longer uses Outlook Express for example, so no data files there anymore.

The point (again) is that extra partitions per se don't affect fragmentation; they merely move it around; and hence cannot significantly affect defrag times either. Sorry if you just can't accept the facts! Even if you were correct, the fragmention issue would be a completely insignificant argument for partitioning given its inconvenience, illusion leading to dangerous complacency, risk of partition table instability, and greatly complicated data recovery in a crash. In fact fragmentation is not very important on modern computers anyway. So you're just beating a dead horse!

You obviously don't want to understand about 'performance' or 'maintenance'.

Well, now, yes I do; it's just that I know, logically AND empirically, that extra partitions don't enhance performance (by the standard definition or even by your own special personal definition) and do complicate maintenance and most everything else--sometimes slightly, other times--as at HD crash time--greatly, but always needlessly. If you're seriously interested in issues of performance and maintenance, you would do well to follow the prescriptions here:

http://www.techbuilder.org/recipes/59201471

(Note #18, against partitioning)

and current lackluster performance can be remedied per excellent MS-MVP advice here:

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/slowcom.htm

in which partitioning isn't mentioned at all of course.

Well, I'm leaving this thread now as I'm just not learning anything and getting back too little for what I give. I'm just hearing the same old mantras. I give you the last word.

Edited April 7, 2006 by JSixpack

[elkangorito]

It's too bad your last post was your 'last' post.

I didn't find much fact in your quoted web 'links' or any of your comments. No 'real' explanation as to what & why you assert such things. I'm talking about 'logic' & engineering. As a matter of fact, one of the links you supplied (http://www.techbuilder.org/recipes/59201471), contradicted itself.

I quote the culpable part of the link in blue, "Still, defragmenting remains an important task. Why? For one, power consumption and heat can be directly related to a fragmented hard drive. When the computer's operating system requests data, if a file is not contiguous, then extra seeking on the disk may be required. But a more important consideration is disk failure. Should a hard drive fail, the likelihood of successfully recovering data from the dead or damaged drive improves significantly if the data is contiguous rather than randomly scattered about the drive platters."

Oops!! A partition here is good.

As I have previously stated, there will ALWAYS be a 'trade off' between SPEED & PERFORMANCE (performance incorporates reliability). It is up to the user to decide whether they require 'safer' system configurations &/or 'safer' procedures (ie backing up) as opposed to a more unreliable fast machine. It appears that the only point where you & I agree is about backing up. Reiterating, 'backing-up' is an invaluable procedure if you have valuable data, which cannot be afforded to be lost.

If one doesn't take the electrical/mechanical function (or more importantly, disfunction) of computer hardware into account, one is being remiss in attempting to cover all possible bases with regard to minimising data loss whilst maximising performance, reducing the NECESSARY maintenance required & reducing the $ value in order to achieve such 'level' performance & higher reliability.

It is an unknowledgable person who believes that 'de-fragmenting' is not required because of modern HDD performance. Windows based systems are 'lazy'. They 'plonk' data wherever is the easiest. As a consequence & over time ( this could be many months), the HDD WILL become slower & slower. It may be a longer period than compared to an OS using old HDD's & older OS's but it will sooner or later become apparent & real. (If you are lucky enough to be able to use Linux or Unix as your operating system [OS], you will not have to de-fragment at all. These OS's are not lazy like Windows is).

Of course & as you supported in one of your links (http://www.techbuilder.org/recipes/59201471), there is a 'wear & tear' factor, with ALL ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC equipment. The more a HDD has to 'read or write', the shorter it's life becomes.

I quote this part of your link in blue; "Still, defragmenting remains an important task. Why? For one, power consumption and heat can be directly related to a fragmented hard drive. When the computer's operating system requests data, if a file is not contiguous, then extra seeking on the disk may be required. But a more important consideration is disk failure. Should a hard drive fail, the likelihood of successfully recovering data from the dead or damaged drive improves significantly if the data is contiguous rather than randomly scattered about the drive platters."

Again, it is NOT a waste of time to have multiple partitions. For someone who is concerned about '2 keystrokes' (extra imaging/ghosting software & extra HDD's, all of which reqiure many more than 2 keystrokes & ALWAYS a different concept of operation/learning), I find it hard to believe how you can condone using methods that will ultimately lead to MANY keystrokes & more complications with extra software upon the system (you contradict yourself with the suggested use of various software etc).

Having spent 15 years as an electrical engineer & about 8 years as a Facilities Manager (maintenance engineer), I have noticed that only accountants think like you. As a result, these people end up spending much more money on maintenance but their trick is to "look good" in the short term. As a consequence, these accountants can only sustain a contract of about about 3 years & then, because of 'not dotting the i's & crossing the t's' (basically, cocking everything up), the contract is awarded to somebody else.

There is no excuse for not listening to engineers or the relevant logic that is provided by them, particularly if the logic can save time & money. Most 'real' engineers will cover all bases & aim for the 'worst case scenario'. They WILL NOT endorse an unproven method or state 'concepts' without the relevant fact (you seem happy to make factless statements or 'facts' stated by other people).

In summary, if you have valuable data upon your computer, you should perform 'back-ups' regularly. At the same time, in order to reduce (not eliminate) the incidence of catastrophic failure, the employ of partitions is prescribed.

By the way, multi partitions DO enable ease of backing up, a SAFER level of operation, reduced maintenance, greater speed (on large HDD's) & a much simplified way of storing essential data. To those who dispute this, conduct a Google search on the subject.

So, was your last post, your 'last post'? We'll see!!!

Edited April 8, 2006 by elkangorito

[freeman]

The best solution for all computers : Fix-It Utilities ( having anti-virus, anti-spyware and fixing utilities for windows and hard disk! )