Eladorb

I have many questions about my current HD set-up and how it can be optimized for program perfomance.

The first question I have deals with how Windows (XP Pro SP2 for me) deals with application data, like gaming apps. I recently had to redo my OS drive when my MOBO and power supply got zapped in an electrical storm. While doing that, I initially installed a stripped down version of XP on one drive (a SATA drive) to retrieve my data from the damaged drive (an IDE drive). After I got my data back, I went and reinstalled a fully updated XP on the original drive and reformatted the drive with "rescue" version of Windows.
I got to thinking later on that with how Windows stores application data (like saved game data in "My Documents") on the same drive as the OS that it would be more efficient/faster for data retrieval if that data was stored on another drive that doesn't use the same communication pathway. So, for example, if I were to keep my OS on an IDE drive and use a SATA drive to store the contents of "My Documents" and the corresponding application itself that it would speed up load times. Instead of XP going back and forth to the CPU/memory/GPU to access information, operating instructions, application instructions, and whatever else from the same drive that it would be streamlined slightly by having all of its operating instructions on one drive and having another drive store the application and data itself. In short, speeding up processes by having one drive act fully as the OS and the other drive as the application center with the CPU/memory/GPU in between processing the requests and instructions.
Long winded, I know, but does this make sense and would it have any impact on performance? If it would, how much of a difference in efficiency would there be between having the OS on the IDE drive and the application and data on the SATA drive versus the other way around? I've been on the sidelines about tinkering around with this and don't know if it's worth the effort.
I am also trying to figure out if all together my SATA drive would be a better bet for speed as the OS home drive (loading up, etc.) versus the IDE drive, but I am a bit hesitant about doing a fully copy of Windows to the SATA drive because of what dangers I've read about ghosting in these forums. Yeah, yeah, I'm kicking myself now for reformatting the drive after I got all my data retrieved but I had a mountain of stuff to redo after the crash.
The way Windows works just doesn't make that much sense now with multiple HD's on many computing systems. Also, I'm a bit rusty about the supposed performance improvements of SATA drives over IDE drives...alot of claims can be made but in all reality do those claims really come true?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

linderman

Hello


you should not fear cloning hard drives (ghosting) in the least bit! cloning is a god send and easy to do if you have data that you want to keep protected!

Imaging is another great tool


as for spped diff in sata and IDE the peformance improvement is very slight, not worth chasing for the most part

the REAL advantage that I love about Sata drives is the thin data cable which improves air flow in the case big time ! that improved air flow is worth chasing and eliminating IDE drives in computer systems


Right now for the most part, hard drive speed is the slowest thing in the computer system, although keeping your OS on a seperate small partition and your programs and data on another partition or seperate drive does speed things up a "wisker" I dont think the gains are worth much time investment, if any ? It more of a "conversation" improvement than a real life performance boost.

I know some fellas that keep all their programs and data stored on a seperate drive, then when (not if) windows crashes / they dont have to mess with the programs and data, they are all there to be saved.

however cloning and imaging have devoured that "theory" IMHO


if you have any other questions, fire away

BTW it may help if you post your full system specs, any performance boost that may be achieved by the hard drive set-up you proposed would best be had with a newer system, not hardly at all on system two or three years old