QUOTE (maxXPsoft @ Nov 11 2006, 08:58 AM)

Install everything to the C: or Windows/Progra Files as normal because most programs will want to go there anyways.
You just described the exact problem. Every single program by default looks for your System's Program Files Dir, HOWEVER...this is NOT necessarily C:\Program Files. For example, many people let Windows XP install on C:\ and then install their Applications and Games on D:\ or perhaps even install Apps on D:\ Games on E:\.
However, If you had created a UA install, say with nLite, and modified it so that the Program Files dir was D:\Program Files, ALL the default programs that are installed with XP will have gone to this directory AND all future installs will automatically go there. This means you no longer have to manually switch the install directory on EVERY single application you install AND this means that if someone sits down on your computer and wants to install something upon which they fly through the install hitting next next next, it wont have slopped up your pretty OS partition.
This is precisely what we want to right off the bat fix with our Vista installs, not to mention many other advantages such as allowing for small OS partition, fragmentation preventation, generally keeping your system cleaner, etc.
QUOTE (McoreD @ Nov 11 2006, 09:39 AM)

My current Windows + Program Files folders are over 20 GiB in Vista, trust me that is going to end up as a BIG image file.
I am not running Vista right now because of our little problem, but if I remember correctly after I got done wiht the install, the amount of space it ate was like 4-5GB, thats outrageous (You can get a modified XP install down to about 400MB with virtually every feature you need still intact including necessary drivers). Just imagine in the future with big OS updates like directX and what not.
On my XP machine my OS partition is 5GB, just to be safe with Vista I would probably make it 15GB just to be safe...even if we are able to move Program Files dir.
Heres a quick low down on my model for partition setup:
-------------
C:\
Stores only one directory, Windows.
Also manages page file
Size: 10GB (I would go 15GB with Vista)
Cluster Size: 16KB
-------------
D:\
Stores Programs files and Documents and Settings (obviously this will change to Users and include ProgramData with Vista)
This partition stores
Size: 60GB
Cluster Size: 8KB
-------------
E:\
Stores all other data for that local machine. Everybody's data directory structure varies obviously.
Size: Whatever is left, bout 100GB for me
Cluster Size: 4KB (default)
-------------
This is actually somewhat controversal as I have never, ever, EVER seen a single person suggest this cluster size setup on any forum and as a matter of fact, to even set your drive up like this requires a somewhat tricky procedure.
I have however seen some people recommend using 64KB clusters, this used to be my philosophy back with 98, to go with the largest possible size, however, using clusters larger than 32KB can potentially be dangerous!! I have used 64KB clusters and THREE times I had gotten disk errors which had to be corrected with CHKDSK which can be somewhat of a hassle and should be avoided.
Why did I pick those sizes?
Do a search on your various drives and analyze the sizes of all the files on each partition, IE, search for files <4K, <8K, <16K, <32k. This will differ slightly for everyone but what I found was that the amount of files that are just under 16K for the Windows drive is the majority, not only that but a large majority are greater than 8K but <16K, implying for maximum performance point would be 16K.
Same thing on D:\, except I found 8K was the better spot than 16K.
And as far as E:\ goes I kept it default because IMO the performance boost of modified cluster sizes pertains best to OS (especially booting) and Program files and I also wanted to maximize the amount of storage.
Hope this is illuminating.