Partition Question

Hi, just to clear up a misconception:

Can a user profile and all that relates to it exist solely in one partition?
No.

You can relocate library folders and files belonging to a user, so that data could be moved to a particular partition.
(There's a tutorial in the Tutorial section).

But what comprises a user profile is much more than the library folders.
For example:
- Each user has folders on the C: (system) drive that are created for that user.
- The registry contains keys solely related to a particular user, and the registry files are on C:.

When you create a partition, it can be used for anything. For example, I have a partition D: on my system drive. I choose to install programs there (partly for historical reasons).

Partitions E,F,G,H on my 2nd drive all contain different sorts of data. I don't keep personal data on C:
E: includes some configuration data for particular programs, Thunderbird emails and my desktop.

Only if you dual boot would you have a partition that's a second system drive.

Recommendation: create a partition and keep your user data off C:. But in your case you'd need to be sure about permissions- that only the appropriate user has access to the relevant folders. You can do that manually, or relocate user libraries there, or both.

Why keep user data separate from the OS? Because if you have to clean install Windows, your user data is untouched.

(Although you will usually lose something when you clean install- even if it's just settings).

I started with a paper tape-base microprocessor system when Microsoft had yet to invent Windows, and MS-DOS then became available with 8086 systems with 8" floppy drives- when floppies were really floppy.

Dual-booting is the answer; however would the end-user be allowed to use the same Windows license in both boots, or, would a separate license be needed? I'm only asking because I want to learn more about this.

Technically that would achieve the separation into distinct partitions, true, but it seems overkill if it's not absolutely necessary.

RolandJS said:

Dual-booting is the answer; however would the end-user be allowed to use the same Windows license in both boots, or, would a separate license be needed? I'm only asking because I want to learn more about this.

Well here is an interesting point.

Suppose you want two versions of 10 Home say as dual boot e.g. one setup for private use, and one for work use, then strictly, you need a separate licence according to EULA.

Now here's the thing - with digital licences being tied to mobo id, when you install second instance it activates automatically ie you do not get opportunity to enter a key.

You can only have one digital licence per edition of Windows 10 per pc. So even if you tried to be 100% EULA compliant by having a licence per install, the reality is you do not need that, and how could you do it anyway?

A more subtle case if eg if you had Windows 8.1, and installed Windows 10 as dual boot, using 8.1 key to activate it. Again this is not EULA compliant according to some people, but in reality it works.

What is permitted is to uninstall 8.1, install 10, the later uninstall 10, install 8 etc. as you are only using one licence at a time.

When you dual boot, you can still only run one OS at a time except you are not physically removing other OS. What is obviously not allowed is to install 8.1 on one pc, and 10 upgraded from same 8.1 as then you could run two separate sessions simultaneously but only have one licence.

So is dual booting with only one licence wrong? According to strict definition of EULAs, probably yes.

In a moral sense, (and this is only my personal opinion), I think you are still observing the spirit of EULA ie you cannot run simultaneous OS sessions. Others will say this is irrelevant, as you are not in accordance with EULA.

Ultimately, this becomes a moral conscience issue, and for avoidance of doubt, I neither encourage or discourage the above.

As an aside, it is not against EULA to dual boot release Windows 10 and Insider Windows 10, as Insider versions have their own EULA, and the requirement to remove other versions does not apply.

Of course, you could ague that it the release version is not EULA compliant, even thoughth e Insider version is - I leave it to the lawyers to untangle that one - lol.

Another inconsistency with Windows 10 is that it seems you can transfer digital licences from one mobo to another even if original licence was oem, which clearly violate the EULA.

However, it was MS who introduced the activation troubleshooter, without (it seems), preventing people from transferring oem licences.

The only plausible conclusion is that MS do not care about minor EULA infringements and their primary objective is to keep people on Windows.