Disk Clean-up ?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

When I do disk clean-up should I check the box "compress the drive to
save disk space?" Thanks!

Stay Safe; Marty
9 answers Last reply
More about disk clean
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    If that's what you want to do, go ahead. But a new hard disk is a better
    idea.

    It sometimes takes a long time to perform the compression and then you'll
    have to wait a second or two every time you access a compressed file while
    Windows uncompresses it.

    Ted Zieglar

    <martymkm@webtv.net> wrote in message
    news:10401-41A5E107-780@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
    > When I do disk clean-up should I check the box "compress the drive to
    > save disk space?" Thanks!
    >
    > Stay Safe; Marty
    >
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    I wouldnt compress.....like Ted said it slows everything down. If you need
    more space a new bigger HD is a good idea.

    "Ted Zieglar" wrote:

    > If that's what you want to do, go ahead. But a new hard disk is a better
    > idea.
    >
    > It sometimes takes a long time to perform the compression and then you'll
    > have to wait a second or two every time you access a compressed file while
    > Windows uncompresses it.
    >
    > Ted Zieglar
    >
    > <martymkm@webtv.net> wrote in message
    > news:10401-41A5E107-780@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
    > > When I do disk clean-up should I check the box "compress the drive to
    > > save disk space?" Thanks!
    > >
    > > Stay Safe; Marty
    > >
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
    news:eI4hbyv0EHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    | If that's what you want to do, go ahead. But a new hard disk is
    a better
    | idea.
    |
    | It sometimes takes a long time to perform the compression and
    then you'll
    | have to wait a second or two every time you access a compressed
    file while
    | Windows uncompresses it.
    |
    | Ted Zieglar
    |
    | <martymkm@webtv.net> wrote in message
    | news:10401-41A5E107-780@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
    | > When I do disk clean-up should I check the box "compress the
    drive to
    | > save disk space?" Thanks!
    | >
    | > Stay Safe; Marty
    | >
    |

    Really? XP SP2 Here, I measured the load time of files with a
    stopwatch, not terribly accurate, but there was no discernible
    difference between the compressed and the uncompressed hard
    drive. I did the test with Access, and a large identical
    database on each of the two physical drives.
    Even rendering video, which has a purportedly accurate timer
    onscreen, I've seen no differences other than the normal bell
    curve of the render times. Forget the numbers now, but the
    average of the times were not different by more than a few frames
    worth. The measurement is in m:hh:ss-ff minutes, hours, seconds,
    frames. The compressed drive in that particular, empiracal test,
    were identical up through ss; only ff differed.
    Objectively or subjectively, I can find no discernible
    differences.

    What is happening with you? How noticeable is it? Are you sure
    you weren't hassled by fragmentation? I can see that making a
    difference.

    I am legitimately curious, because if there is a way to cause it
    to be slow, I'd like to know what it is. What am I missing? I'd
    like to avoid it.

    Pop
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    Video is already compressed. It cannot be compressed any further.

    Ted Zieglar

    "Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:ujiqeMw0EHA.2200@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:eI4hbyv0EHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > | If that's what you want to do, go ahead. But a new hard disk is
    > a better
    > | idea.
    > |
    > | It sometimes takes a long time to perform the compression and
    > then you'll
    > | have to wait a second or two every time you access a compressed
    > file while
    > | Windows uncompresses it.
    > |
    > | Ted Zieglar
    > |
    > | <martymkm@webtv.net> wrote in message
    > | news:10401-41A5E107-780@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
    > | > When I do disk clean-up should I check the box "compress the
    > drive to
    > | > save disk space?" Thanks!
    > | >
    > | > Stay Safe; Marty
    > | >
    > |
    >
    > Really? XP SP2 Here, I measured the load time of files with a
    > stopwatch, not terribly accurate, but there was no discernible
    > difference between the compressed and the uncompressed hard
    > drive. I did the test with Access, and a large identical
    > database on each of the two physical drives.
    > Even rendering video, which has a purportedly accurate timer
    > onscreen, I've seen no differences other than the normal bell
    > curve of the render times. Forget the numbers now, but the
    > average of the times were not different by more than a few frames
    > worth. The measurement is in m:hh:ss-ff minutes, hours, seconds,
    > frames. The compressed drive in that particular, empiracal test,
    > were identical up through ss; only ff differed.
    > Objectively or subjectively, I can find no discernible
    > differences.
    >
    > What is happening with you? How noticeable is it? Are you sure
    > you weren't hassled by fragmentation? I can see that making a
    > difference.
    >
    > I am legitimately curious, because if there is a way to cause it
    > to be slow, I'd like to know what it is. What am I missing? I'd
    > like to avoid it.
    >
    > Pop
    >
    >
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
    news:epsTiRw0EHA.1392@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Video is already compressed. It cannot be compressed any further.
    >
    > "Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    > news:ujiqeMw0EHA.2200@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >> Really? XP SP2 Here, I measured the load time of files with a
    >> stopwatch, not terribly accurate, but there was no discernible
    >> difference between the compressed and the uncompressed hard
    >> drive. I did the test with Access, and a large identical
    >> database on each of the two physical drives.
    >> Even rendering video, which has a purportedly accurate timer
    >> onscreen, I've seen no differences other than the normal bell
    >> curve of the render times. Forget the numbers now, but the
    >> average of the times were not different by more than a few frames
    >> worth. The measurement is in m:hh:ss-ff minutes, hours, seconds,
    >> frames. The compressed drive in that particular, empiracal test,
    >> were identical up through ss; only ff differed.
    >> Objectively or subjectively, I can find no discernible
    >> differences.
    >> ...

    *SOME* video is compressed, some is NOT. As a test, I saved an .avi
    file that was uncompressed that consumed 221 MB of disk space. I then
    saved a compressed copy (using DivX) and it was 2.61 MB in size, a huge
    difference. So the compression would help with uncompressed video files
    (to save on disk space although I don't know about the difference in
    performance in opening or writing to the file) but the disk-level
    compression won't do diddly squat for already-compressed video files and
    could actually make them bloom to be slightly larger in size
    (compressing an already-compressed file might actually make it larger if
    just for the added overhead for the extra layer of added compression).

    --
    _________________________________________________________________
    ******** Post replies to newsgroup - Share with others ********
    Email: lh_811newsATyahooDOTcom and append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
    _________________________________________________________________
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    I think I will pass on compressing, I don't think I really need to....
    The machine is only a few months old and I have only dl Nortons AV and
    Firewall, et al. No music, no pictures, text files etc., etc. etc. Only
    what I need for "protection", ie Spybot S & D, Ad-Aware, Spywareblaster,
    Bazooka.... But thanks for the reply!

    Stay Safe; Marty
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    "Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:ujiqeMw0EHA.2200@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:eI4hbyv0EHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > | If that's what you want to do, go ahead. But a new hard disk is
    > a better
    > | idea.
    > |
    > | It sometimes takes a long time to perform the compression and
    > then you'll
    > | have to wait a second or two every time you access a compressed
    > file while
    > | Windows uncompresses it.
    > |
    > | Ted Zieglar
    > |
    > | <martymkm@webtv.net> wrote in message
    > | news:10401-41A5E107-780@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
    > | > When I do disk clean-up should I check the box "compress the
    > drive to
    > | > save disk space?" Thanks!
    > | >
    > | > Stay Safe; Marty
    > | >
    > |
    >
    > Really? XP SP2 Here, I measured the load time of files with a
    > stopwatch, not terribly accurate, but there was no discernible
    > difference between the compressed and the uncompressed hard
    > drive. I did the test with Access, and a large identical
    > database on each of the two physical drives.
    > Even rendering video, which has a purportedly accurate timer
    > onscreen, I've seen no differences other than the normal bell
    > curve of the render times. Forget the numbers now, but the
    > average of the times were not different by more than a few frames
    > worth. The measurement is in m:hh:ss-ff minutes, hours, seconds,
    > frames. The compressed drive in that particular, empiracal test,
    > were identical up through ss; only ff differed.
    > Objectively or subjectively, I can find no discernible
    > differences.
    >
    > What is happening with you? How noticeable is it? Are you sure
    > you weren't hassled by fragmentation? I can see that making a
    > difference.
    >
    > I am legitimately curious, because if there is a way to cause it
    > to be slow, I'd like to know what it is. What am I missing? I'd
    > like to avoid it.
    >
    > Pop

    There is a _big_ difference between compressing old files and compressing a
    drive. As a matter of concern I don't think that WXP even has a disc
    compression
    tool.
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    In message <#fllE1G4EHA.4008@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, BBUNNY
    <bbunny@bqik.net> writes
    >
    >"Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    >news:ujiqeMw0EHA.2200@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >> "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:eI4hbyv0EHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >> | If that's what you want to do, go ahead. But a new hard disk is
    >> a better
    >> | idea.
    >> |
    >> | It sometimes takes a long time to perform the compression and
    >> then you'll
    >> | have to wait a second or two every time you access a compressed
    >> file while
    >> | Windows uncompresses it.
    >> |
    >> | Ted Zieglar
    >> |
    >> | <martymkm@webtv.net> wrote in message
    >> | news:10401-41A5E107-780@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
    >> | > When I do disk clean-up should I check the box "compress the
    >> drive to
    >> | > save disk space?" Thanks!
    >> | >
    >> | > Stay Safe; Marty
    >> | >
    >> |
    >>
    >> Really? XP SP2 Here, I measured the load time of files with a
    >> stopwatch, not terribly accurate, but there was no discernible
    >> difference between the compressed and the uncompressed hard
    >> drive. I did the test with Access, and a large identical
    >> database on each of the two physical drives.
    >> Even rendering video, which has a purportedly accurate timer
    >> onscreen, I've seen no differences other than the normal bell
    >> curve of the render times. Forget the numbers now, but the
    >> average of the times were not different by more than a few frames
    >> worth. The measurement is in m:hh:ss-ff minutes, hours, seconds,
    >> frames. The compressed drive in that particular, empiracal test,
    >> were identical up through ss; only ff differed.
    >> Objectively or subjectively, I can find no discernible
    >> differences.
    >>
    >> What is happening with you? How noticeable is it? Are you sure
    >> you weren't hassled by fragmentation? I can see that making a
    >> difference.
    >>
    >> I am legitimately curious, because if there is a way to cause it
    >> to be slow, I'd like to know what it is. What am I missing? I'd
    >> like to avoid it.
    >>
    >> Pop
    >
    >There is a _big_ difference between compressing old files and compressing a
    >drive. As a matter of concern I don't think that WXP even has a disc
    >compression
    >tool.
    >
    >
    My Computer / right click on the drive and at the bottom you have
    "compress" - can't say if it works as I never used it!
    --
    CHRIS WILKINSON
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    I have found that Cleanup! available at http://cleanup.stevengould.org/ does
    a much better job than Disk Cleanup.

    Regards.

    Bill Ridgeway
Ask a new question

Read More

Disk Space Microsoft Windows XP