Disk Clean-up ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter martymkm
  • Start date Start date
M

martymkm

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

Stay Safe; Marty
 
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
 
I wouldnt compress.....like Ted said it slows everything down. If you need
more space a new bigger HD is a good idea.
 
| 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
|
| | > 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
 
Ted Zieglar said:
Video is already compressed. It cannot be compressed any further.
Click to expand...

*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).
 
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
 
Pop said:
| 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
|
| | > 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
Click to expand...

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.
 
BBUNNY said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Back
Top