Folder-Size Question

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Is there is a folder-size limit for Me? I'm wanting to move a 2+ GB folder
of images and other files from my D drive into My Pictures so that when I
access the pics with my graphics program the "Open" dialogs will show me
thumbnails by default (the perpetual clicking to "View/Thumbnails" has
gotten very old!)

I've seen questions before relating to the limit of Outlook Express's folder
where it was guesstimated at about one GB--however, a friend using
Millennium didn't gag her OE until she'd accumulated 13 GB's of email in it!
I sure don't want to cause myself any problems--but having those thumbs at
my fingertips would be such a joy ;-)

carol

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

In Win Me which used the FAT32 filing system, files may not exceed 4GB and
the number of files in a folder should not exceed 65,534 although the
number can be decreased where Long File Names are used . See
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp

Outlook Express folders, each of which is a file, has a 2GB limit for each
OE folder (that is file) but it is best if they are kept well below that,
especially the Inbox and Sent Items folders which should be regularly
cleared to other folders and kept as small and compact as possible.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


caroloyl <caroloyl@nospamgetgoin.net> wrote:

> Is there is a folder-size limit for Me? I'm wanting to move a 2+ GB
> folder of images and other files from my D drive into My Pictures so
> that when I access the pics with my graphics program the "Open"
> dialogs will show me thumbnails by default (the perpetual clicking to
> "View/Thumbnails" has gotten very old!)
>
> I've seen questions before relating to the limit of Outlook Express's
> folder where it was guesstimated at about one GB--however, a friend
> using Millennium didn't gag her OE until she'd accumulated 13 GB's of
> email in it! I sure don't want to cause myself any problems--but
> having those thumbs at my fingertips would be such a joy ;-)
>
> carol

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Hi Mike

Thanks for the info--this is good and comforting to know! I looked at the
page you linked and found words I've never seen before, like terabyte and
exabyte. They both sound like unimaginable quantites!

As far as I know I have no files at all that are even one GB so I'm well
within the rule there--nor do I have anywhere near 65,000 files in one
folder so I'm feeling good about that too! I am wondering though how many
characters make a long file name. The only info about them I've found is
that they can contain up to 250 characters--but at what character count does
a filename cease being short and become "long"? Is it the DOS limit of 8?

The OE info is just as important to me and my thanks for it too! I can see
that my friend's problem was probably one dbx file (no doubt her inbox) that
filled up to the limit. She'll be pleased to have this information too to
ward off another disaster: she'd gone off for a week and left OE running to
download mail as it arrived--and she gets hundreds of messages every day!

A few more questions:

--Is there a limit to the number of subfolders a folder can contain? Inside
my 2 GB folder I have folders within folders within folders.
--Am I correct to assume that the count of files in subfolders is not added
to the count of files in the top folder?
--Is there any problem with having files that are not images stored in and
accessed from My Pictures?

Your help is very much appreciated!

carol


"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:OiJJn7XHFHA.2620@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In Win Me which used the FAT32 filing system, files may not exceed 4GB and
> the number of files in a folder should not exceed 65,534 although the
> number can be decreased where Long File Names are used . See
>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp
>
> Outlook Express folders, each of which is a file, has a 2GB limit for each
> OE folder (that is file) but it is best if they are kept well below that,
> especially the Inbox and Sent Items folders which should be regularly
> cleared to other folders and kept as small and compact as possible.
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> caroloyl <caroloyl@nospamgetgoin.net> wrote:
>
> > Is there is a folder-size limit for Me? I'm wanting to move a 2+ GB
> > folder of images and other files from my D drive into My Pictures so
> > that when I access the pics with my graphics program the "Open"
> > dialogs will show me thumbnails by default (the perpetual clicking to
> > "View/Thumbnails" has gotten very old!)
> >
> > I've seen questions before relating to the limit of Outlook Express's
> > folder where it was guesstimated at about one GB--however, a friend
> > using Millennium didn't gag her OE until she'd accumulated 13 GB's of
> > email in it! I sure don't want to cause myself any problems--but
> > having those thumbs at my fingertips would be such a joy ;-)
> >
> > carol
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Carol,

DOS file names are those that conform to the 8.3 all capitals notation.
All others are Long File Names.

> terabyte (TB) = 1000GB (or rather 1024GB)
> exabyte = 1000TB (or rather 1024TB)

> --Is there a limit to the number of subfolders a folder can contain?

The 65,534 is the number of entries possible in the FAT (File Allocation
Table) be they files or folders.

> --Am I correct to assume that the count of files in subfolders is not
> added to the count of files in the top folder?

Correct

> --Is there any problem with having files that are not images stored
> in and accessed from My Pictures?

No, although naturally if using thumbnail view you won't see a pretty
picture but instead that of the file type.

Regards,
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com



caroloyl <caroloyl@nospamgetgoin.net> wrote:

> Hi Mike
>
> Thanks for the info--this is good and comforting to know! I looked
> at the page you linked and found words I've never seen before, like
> terabyte and exabyte. They both sound like unimaginable quantites!
>
> As far as I know I have no files at all that are even one GB so I'm
> well within the rule there--nor do I have anywhere near 65,000 files
> in one folder so I'm feeling good about that too! I am wondering
> though how many characters make a long file name. The only info
> about them I've found is that they can contain up to 250
> characters--but at what character count does a filename cease being
> short and become "long"? Is it the DOS limit of 8?
>
> The OE info is just as important to me and my thanks for it too! I
> can see that my friend's problem was probably one dbx file (no doubt
> her inbox) that filled up to the limit. She'll be pleased to have
> this information too to ward off another disaster: she'd gone off
> for a week and left OE running to download mail as it arrived--and
> she gets hundreds of messages every day!
>
> A few more questions:
>
> --Is there a limit to the number of subfolders a folder can contain?
> Inside my 2 GB folder I have folders within folders within folders.
> --Am I correct to assume that the count of files in subfolders is not
> added to the count of files in the top folder?
> --Is there any problem with having files that are not images stored
> in and accessed from My Pictures?
>
> Your help is very much appreciated!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:

>> terabyte (TB) = 1000GB (or rather 1024GB)
>> exabyte = 1000TB (or rather 1024TB)

To put it in perpective "it might be interesting to think about just how
big even one exabyte is. One exabyte is 1 billion gigabytes. Let's say
you need 1 exabyte of storage and decide to purchase 25 GB hard drives.
In order to have one exabyte of storage, you would need almost
43,000,000 of these 25 GB drives. At about $US200 for the drives (with
volume discount, tax not included), this works out to just over US$ 8.5
billion. That doesn't include the controller cards or chassis to hold
these drives. I don't want to think about how long it would take to
format the drives."

Of course 25 GB drives don't cost $200 now a days but even at $10 a pop
that would add up to $430,000,000 just for the drives! Plus tax of
course...

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/questions/peeran16.mspx

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

However what will be the position in ten years time? Remember that the
article you mention was written six years ago 1999.

In the around 1970 I remember the joy at my university having managed to
obtain a grant to purchase a 1MB core box for our IBM360. Hand wired with
ferrite cores and cost a mint!
In around 1985 I remember buying the first hard disk for my PC. 30MB
which had to be partitioned as the system couldn't access more than I
think a 20MB partition. I can't remember the cost of the controller and
disk but it wasn't cheap.
In 1993 we purchased a new departmental server with a total of 3GB of
storage, 2x600MB and 2x1200MB scsi drives. Cost in excess of US$10,000
Now in 2005 two of my PCs each have in excess of ½TB of storage. A box
with 4x 250GB SATA drives can be put together for well under US$2000.

So perhaps an exabyte of storage won't be that fantastic a thought in
2015. As to who will need that amount of storage is another thing but raw
high definition AV data certainly eats up storage.

John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> Mike M wrote:
>
>>> terabyte (TB) = 1000GB (or rather 1024GB)
>>> exabyte = 1000TB (or rather 1024TB)
>
> To put it in perpective "it might be interesting to think about just
> how big even one exabyte is. One exabyte is 1 billion gigabytes.
> Let's say you need 1 exabyte of storage and decide to purchase 25 GB
> hard drives. In order to have one exabyte of storage, you would need
> almost 43,000,000 of these 25 GB drives. At about $US200 for the
> drives (with volume discount, tax not included), this works out to
> just over US$ 8.5 billion. That doesn't include the controller cards
> or chassis to hold these drives. I don't want to think about how long
> it would take to format the drives."
>
> Of course 25 GB drives don't cost $200 now a days but even at $10 a
> pop that would add up to $430,000,000 just for the drives! Plus tax
> of course...
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/questions/peeran16.mspx
>
> John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Yeah, it's the same as the ever increasing RAM. Interesting, I found
this in regards to storage and terabyte usage:

Terabytes in use

A typical video store contains about 8 terabytes of video. The books in
the largest library in the world, the U.S. Library of Congress, contain
about 20 terabytes of text. The Internet Archive currently has about 1
petabyte of data.

Personal computers containing a terabyte or more of storage space have
recently become possible using combinations of high-capacity consumer
hard drives. As of 2004, drives exceed 300 gigabytes in size, so storage
capacity totalling a terabyte or more can be reached using as few as 3
or 4 hard disks, at a street cost of as little as US$500, down from over
US$1000 in 2003. (source: www.pricewatch.com)

A petabyte is either 1000 terabytes or 1024 terabytes, depending on the
usage. (aka Exabyte)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terabyte

I think that in regards to home computers the real question is how much
can one really use or need. I mean the Library of Congress has 20
terabytes, imagine yourself sifting through 20 terabytes of data on a
home pc, you'd be lost or you just simply wouldn't have time to sift
through and use all that information, good for pack rats I guess! Or
you could store thousands of movies...

John

Mike M wrote:

> However what will be the position in ten years time? Remember that the
> article you mention was written six years ago 1999.
>
> In the around 1970 I remember the joy at my university having managed to
> obtain a grant to purchase a 1MB core box for our IBM360. Hand wired
> with ferrite cores and cost a mint!
> In around 1985 I remember buying the first hard disk for my PC. 30MB
> which had to be partitioned as the system couldn't access more than I
> think a 20MB partition. I can't remember the cost of the controller and
> disk but it wasn't cheap.
> In 1993 we purchased a new departmental server with a total of 3GB of
> storage, 2x600MB and 2x1200MB scsi drives. Cost in excess of US$10,000
> Now in 2005 two of my PCs each have in excess of ½TB of storage. A box
> with 4x 250GB SATA drives can be put together for well under US$2000.
>
> So perhaps an exabyte of storage won't be that fantastic a thought in
> 2015. As to who will need that amount of storage is another thing but
> raw high definition AV data certainly eats up storage.
>
> John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>> Mike M wrote:
>>
>>>> terabyte (TB) = 1000GB (or rather 1024GB)
>>>> exabyte = 1000TB (or rather 1024TB)
>>
>>
>> To put it in perpective "it might be interesting to think about just
>> how big even one exabyte is. One exabyte is 1 billion gigabytes.
>> Let's say you need 1 exabyte of storage and decide to purchase 25 GB
>> hard drives. In order to have one exabyte of storage, you would need
>> almost 43,000,000 of these 25 GB drives. At about $US200 for the
>> drives (with volume discount, tax not included), this works out to
>> just over US$ 8.5 billion. That doesn't include the controller cards
>> or chassis to hold these drives. I don't want to think about how long
>> it would take to format the drives."
>>
>> Of course 25 GB drives don't cost $200 now a days but even at $10 a
>> pop that would add up to $430,000,000 just for the drives! Plus tax
>> of course...
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/questions/peeran16.mspx
>>
>>
>> John
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Hi Mike

I just knew those tera- and exabytes were way beyond the outer limits of my
scope---unimaginable!

I've assessed the rules and find no reason why my idea won't fly. Thanks
ever so much for patching these holes in my ken )

carol


"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23QtA9TeHFHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Carol,
>
> DOS file names are those that conform to the 8.3 all capitals notation.
> All others are Long File Names.
>
> > terabyte (TB) = 1000GB (or rather 1024GB)
> > exabyte = 1000TB (or rather 1024TB)
>
> > --Is there a limit to the number of subfolders a folder can contain?
>
> The 65,534 is the number of entries possible in the FAT (File Allocation
> Table) be they files or folders.
>
> > --Am I correct to assume that the count of files in subfolders is not
> > added to the count of files in the top folder?
>
> Correct
>
> > --Is there any problem with having files that are not images stored
> > in and accessed from My Pictures?
>
> No, although naturally if using thumbnail view you won't see a pretty
> picture but instead that of the file type.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
>
> caroloyl <caroloyl@nospamgetgoin.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike
> >
> > Thanks for the info--this is good and comforting to know! I looked
> > at the page you linked and found words I've never seen before, like
> > terabyte and exabyte. They both sound like unimaginable quantites!
> >
> > As far as I know I have no files at all that are even one GB so I'm
> > well within the rule there--nor do I have anywhere near 65,000 files
> > in one folder so I'm feeling good about that too! I am wondering
> > though how many characters make a long file name. The only info
> > about them I've found is that they can contain up to 250
> > characters--but at what character count does a filename cease being
> > short and become "long"? Is it the DOS limit of 8?
> >
> > The OE info is just as important to me and my thanks for it too! I
> > can see that my friend's problem was probably one dbx file (no doubt
> > her inbox) that filled up to the limit. She'll be pleased to have
> > this information too to ward off another disaster: she'd gone off
> > for a week and left OE running to download mail as it arrived--and
> > she gets hundreds of messages every day!
> >
> > A few more questions:
> >
> > --Is there a limit to the number of subfolders a folder can contain?
> > Inside my 2 GB folder I have folders within folders within folders.
> > --Am I correct to assume that the count of files in subfolders is not
> > added to the count of files in the top folder?
> > --Is there any problem with having files that are not images stored
> > in and accessed from My Pictures?
> >
> > Your help is very much appreciated!
>

 

[Shane]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> I think that in regards to home computers the real question is how much
> can one really use or need. I mean the Library of Congress has 20
> terabytes, imagine yourself sifting through 20 terabytes of data on a
> home pc, you'd be lost or you just simply wouldn't have time to sift
> through and use all that information, good for pack rats I guess! Or
> you could store thousands of movies...
>

I want to catalog every star in the Universe. Or every cell in my brain
might make more sense, as they can be reduced in no.

Shane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Given a choice I would want the following pc configuration:

- 20 GB hard drive
- 1 Exabyte RAM (and an OS that can use it!)
- an Internet connection of 1 Terabyte/second.

John

Shane wrote:
>>I think that in regards to home computers the real question is how much
>>can one really use or need. I mean the Library of Congress has 20
>>terabytes, imagine yourself sifting through 20 terabytes of data on a
>>home pc, you'd be lost or you just simply wouldn't have time to sift
>>through and use all that information, good for pack rats I guess! Or
>>you could store thousands of movies...
>>
>
>
> I want to catalog every star in the Universe. Or every cell in my brain
> might make more sense, as they can be reduced in no.
>
> Shane
>
>