I have 5 HDD in the new XP system I'm building. I know 2 spindles is better than 1 for performance, but with 5 the options seem endless. This is what I was thinking would give me the best performance, any markups? PHYSICAL HDDs: A) 500GB SATA2 B) 500GB SATA2 C) 300GB EIDE D) 160GB EIDE E) 120GB EIDE Partitioning is as follows: A) 500GB is partitioned into two pieces: [A1] is 30GB for Windows [A2] is 470GB for Images (photos, digital stills) B) 500GB is partitioned into two pieces: [B1] is 15GB for SWAP and system temp directory [B2] is 485GB for Applications & user data C) 300GB is for backup D) 160GB is scratch 1 E) 120GB is scratch 2 Mounting/Paths are as follows: [A1]=C:\ [A2]=MOUNTED TO --> D:\IMAGES [B1]=MOUNTED TO --> C:\SYS_TEMP [B2]=D:\ [C] =E:\ [D] =MOUNTED TO --> D:\SCRATCH\160GB [E] =MOUNTED TO --> D:\SCRATCH\120GB So, I only have 3 drive letters for my 5 drives and 7 partitions. I partitioned the OS separately so that it's on the front and fast 30GB of the first 500GB. I partitioned the SWAP/TEMP separately so that it's on the front and fast 15GB of the second 500GB I've got apps on a different spindle than the OS I've got 2 "scratch" disks, each it's own spindle, that Photoshop or burning can use.... I'd like to think this is well thought out, but I'm opening it up for criticism...and if you've read this far- thanks!