From: RnR on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:01:56 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Monica wrote:
>> Thanks guys. In all the years I've been reading newsgroups for help, this
>> one remains my favorite :)
>> I obsess over filling up my hard drive so after nearly a year I still have
>> 281GB free of a 300GB hdd.
>> My backup drives...now that's a different story. The one with the most used
>> space is down to 48gb
>> free out of 150gb drive. At what point should I stop adding to it?
>> As for defragging, I think I'll try one of the ones suggested on the backup
>> drive that's pretty full.
>> My C drive, I think I'll just leave as is for right now. Like others
>> mentioned, I don't see a difference
>> after defragging anyway and I'm not having any problems with it.
>> Monica
>>
>>
>>
>> "Hank Arnold" <rasilon(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b7a610a$0$31281$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
>>> On 2/15/2010 1:21 PM, Monica wrote:
>>>> I've always used Window's defrag program. This is adequate or can
>>>> I/Should
>>>> I be using something better?
>>>> A newsletter I got today mentioned a program called UltraDefrag. It's
>>>> free
>>>> so maybe it's worth what it costs<g>
>>>> What would you guys suggest?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Monica
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've been using UltraDefrag for a while. It's good and works fast. A lot
>>> faster than the built in XP defrag....
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hank Arnold
>>> Microsoft MVP
>>> Windows Server - Directory Services
>>> http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/personal-pc-assistant/
>>
>>
>
>Why do you obsess over filling your hard drive? A full hard drive
>doesn't make a computer run any worse than an empty hard drive, as long
>as you have enough space for your software to run.
>
>It makes no sense to buy a 300GB hard drive (probably sold as a 320GB
>hard drive) and then to be afraid to use more than a fraction of its
>capacity.
>
>No one can decide for you how many generations of backup to keep. That's
>entirely your decision, based on your comfort level.
>
>For example: I backup my system partition daily and maintain the most
>recent seven backups. But that's me. Other people may have different
>ideas. What works for you?
>
>Daddy



Well, technically you don't want to fill a hard drive up to capacity
so you can leave room for virtual memory, etc.. . I think Monica
is on the right track but perhaps just being a bit over cautious but
if it works for her, then don't change it <g>. I know it's nice to
have a lot of space.
From: Daddy on
RnR wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:01:56 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Monica wrote:
>>> Thanks guys. In all the years I've been reading newsgroups for help, this
>>> one remains my favorite :)
>>> I obsess over filling up my hard drive so after nearly a year I still have
>>> 281GB free of a 300GB hdd.
>>> My backup drives...now that's a different story. The one with the most used
>>> space is down to 48gb
>>> free out of 150gb drive. At what point should I stop adding to it?
>>> As for defragging, I think I'll try one of the ones suggested on the backup
>>> drive that's pretty full.
>>> My C drive, I think I'll just leave as is for right now. Like others
>>> mentioned, I don't see a difference
>>> after defragging anyway and I'm not having any problems with it.
>>> Monica
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Hank Arnold" <rasilon(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4b7a610a$0$31281$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
>>>> On 2/15/2010 1:21 PM, Monica wrote:
>>>>> I've always used Window's defrag program. This is adequate or can
>>>>> I/Should
>>>>> I be using something better?
>>>>> A newsletter I got today mentioned a program called UltraDefrag. It's
>>>>> free
>>>>> so maybe it's worth what it costs<g>
>>>>> What would you guys suggest?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Monica
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I've been using UltraDefrag for a while. It's good and works fast. A lot
>>>> faster than the built in XP defrag....
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hank Arnold
>>>> Microsoft MVP
>>>> Windows Server - Directory Services
>>>> http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/personal-pc-assistant/
>>>
>> Why do you obsess over filling your hard drive? A full hard drive
>> doesn't make a computer run any worse than an empty hard drive, as long
>> as you have enough space for your software to run.
>>
>> It makes no sense to buy a 300GB hard drive (probably sold as a 320GB
>> hard drive) and then to be afraid to use more than a fraction of its
>> capacity.
>>
>> No one can decide for you how many generations of backup to keep. That's
>> entirely your decision, based on your comfort level.
>>
>> For example: I backup my system partition daily and maintain the most
>> recent seven backups. But that's me. Other people may have different
>> ideas. What works for you?
>>
>> Daddy
>
>
>
> Well, technically you don't want to fill a hard drive up to capacity
> so you can leave room for virtual memory, etc.. . I think Monica
> is on the right track but perhaps just being a bit over cautious but
> if it works for her, then don't change it <g>. I know it's nice to
> have a lot of space.

I never said the OP - or anyone else - should "fill a hard drive up to
capacity."

However, the OP could easily add an extra 200GB of programs and/or data
to her hard drive and not suffer any performance hits or problems due
solely to the fact that more disk space is occupied.

Daddy
From: RnR on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:00:15 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>RnR wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:01:56 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Monica wrote:
>>>> Thanks guys. In all the years I've been reading newsgroups for help, this
>>>> one remains my favorite :)
>>>> I obsess over filling up my hard drive so after nearly a year I still have
>>>> 281GB free of a 300GB hdd.
>>>> My backup drives...now that's a different story. The one with the most used
>>>> space is down to 48gb
>>>> free out of 150gb drive. At what point should I stop adding to it?
>>>> As for defragging, I think I'll try one of the ones suggested on the backup
>>>> drive that's pretty full.
>>>> My C drive, I think I'll just leave as is for right now. Like others
>>>> mentioned, I don't see a difference
>>>> after defragging anyway and I'm not having any problems with it.
>>>> Monica
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hank Arnold" <rasilon(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b7a610a$0$31281$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
>>>>> On 2/15/2010 1:21 PM, Monica wrote:
>>>>>> I've always used Window's defrag program. This is adequate or can
>>>>>> I/Should
>>>>>> I be using something better?
>>>>>> A newsletter I got today mentioned a program called UltraDefrag. It's
>>>>>> free
>>>>>> so maybe it's worth what it costs<g>
>>>>>> What would you guys suggest?
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Monica
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've been using UltraDefrag for a while. It's good and works fast. A lot
>>>>> faster than the built in XP defrag....
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hank Arnold
>>>>> Microsoft MVP
>>>>> Windows Server - Directory Services
>>>>> http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/personal-pc-assistant/
>>>>
>>> Why do you obsess over filling your hard drive? A full hard drive
>>> doesn't make a computer run any worse than an empty hard drive, as long
>>> as you have enough space for your software to run.
>>>
>>> It makes no sense to buy a 300GB hard drive (probably sold as a 320GB
>>> hard drive) and then to be afraid to use more than a fraction of its
>>> capacity.
>>>
>>> No one can decide for you how many generations of backup to keep. That's
>>> entirely your decision, based on your comfort level.
>>>
>>> For example: I backup my system partition daily and maintain the most
>>> recent seven backups. But that's me. Other people may have different
>>> ideas. What works for you?
>>>
>>> Daddy
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, technically you don't want to fill a hard drive up to capacity
>> so you can leave room for virtual memory, etc.. . I think Monica
>> is on the right track but perhaps just being a bit over cautious but
>> if it works for her, then don't change it <g>. I know it's nice to
>> have a lot of space.
>
>I never said the OP - or anyone else - should "fill a hard drive up to
>capacity."
>
>However, the OP could easily add an extra 200GB of programs and/or data
>to her hard drive and not suffer any performance hits or problems due
>solely to the fact that more disk space is occupied.
>
>Daddy


Well you did say "A full hard drive doesn't make a computer run any
worse than an empty hard drive...." so I thought you implied that
you could fill it up to near capacity, no???

Well I agree if it's just storing data but if it's installed programs,
I will disagree. As I said, Monica's way of thinking is fine, if
that works for her.
From: Daddy on
RnR wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:00:15 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> RnR wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:01:56 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Monica wrote:
>>>>> Thanks guys. In all the years I've been reading newsgroups for help, this
>>>>> one remains my favorite :)
>>>>> I obsess over filling up my hard drive so after nearly a year I still have
>>>>> 281GB free of a 300GB hdd.
>>>>> My backup drives...now that's a different story. The one with the most used
>>>>> space is down to 48gb
>>>>> free out of 150gb drive. At what point should I stop adding to it?
>>>>> As for defragging, I think I'll try one of the ones suggested on the backup
>>>>> drive that's pretty full.
>>>>> My C drive, I think I'll just leave as is for right now. Like others
>>>>> mentioned, I don't see a difference
>>>>> after defragging anyway and I'm not having any problems with it.
>>>>> Monica
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hank Arnold" <rasilon(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b7a610a$0$31281$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
>>>>>> On 2/15/2010 1:21 PM, Monica wrote:
>>>>>>> I've always used Window's defrag program. This is adequate or can
>>>>>>> I/Should
>>>>>>> I be using something better?
>>>>>>> A newsletter I got today mentioned a program called UltraDefrag. It's
>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>> so maybe it's worth what it costs<g>
>>>>>>> What would you guys suggest?
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Monica
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been using UltraDefrag for a while. It's good and works fast. A lot
>>>>>> faster than the built in XP defrag....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hank Arnold
>>>>>> Microsoft MVP
>>>>>> Windows Server - Directory Services
>>>>>> http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/personal-pc-assistant/
>>>> Why do you obsess over filling your hard drive? A full hard drive
>>>> doesn't make a computer run any worse than an empty hard drive, as long
>>>> as you have enough space for your software to run.
>>>>
>>>> It makes no sense to buy a 300GB hard drive (probably sold as a 320GB
>>>> hard drive) and then to be afraid to use more than a fraction of its
>>>> capacity.
>>>>
>>>> No one can decide for you how many generations of backup to keep. That's
>>>> entirely your decision, based on your comfort level.
>>>>
>>>> For example: I backup my system partition daily and maintain the most
>>>> recent seven backups. But that's me. Other people may have different
>>>> ideas. What works for you?
>>>>
>>>> Daddy
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, technically you don't want to fill a hard drive up to capacity
>>> so you can leave room for virtual memory, etc.. . I think Monica
>>> is on the right track but perhaps just being a bit over cautious but
>>> if it works for her, then don't change it <g>. I know it's nice to
>>> have a lot of space.
>> I never said the OP - or anyone else - should "fill a hard drive up to
>> capacity."
>>
>> However, the OP could easily add an extra 200GB of programs and/or data
>> to her hard drive and not suffer any performance hits or problems due
>> solely to the fact that more disk space is occupied.
>>
>> Daddy
>
>
> Well you did say "A full hard drive doesn't make a computer run any
> worse than an empty hard drive...." so I thought you implied that
> you could fill it up to near capacity, no???
>
> Well I agree if it's just storing data but if it's installed programs,
> I will disagree. As I said, Monica's way of thinking is fine, if
> that works for her.

What does it matter whether the 200GB are programs or data? Heck, it
could be 200GB of junk. The mere fact that the hard drive contains 200
billion extra bytes (give or take) is not going to affect its
performance. The platters will spin just as quickly. The actuator will
moves the arms just as rapidly. The operating system, processor, memory,
etc. will function just as well.

On the other hand, you could install a 1MB (or smaller) application,
driver, or update and bring the machine to its knees (and you with it.)

Performance is affected by /what/ you install, not /how much/ you
install. To intentionally leave vacant the vast majority of the disk
space you bought and paid for under the guise of avoiding trouble is
incorrect.

Daddy
From: RnR on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:35:25 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>RnR wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:00:15 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> RnR wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:01:56 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Monica wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks guys. In all the years I've been reading newsgroups for help, this
>>>>>> one remains my favorite :)
>>>>>> I obsess over filling up my hard drive so after nearly a year I still have
>>>>>> 281GB free of a 300GB hdd.
>>>>>> My backup drives...now that's a different story. The one with the most used
>>>>>> space is down to 48gb
>>>>>> free out of 150gb drive. At what point should I stop adding to it?
>>>>>> As for defragging, I think I'll try one of the ones suggested on the backup
>>>>>> drive that's pretty full.
>>>>>> My C drive, I think I'll just leave as is for right now. Like others
>>>>>> mentioned, I don't see a difference
>>>>>> after defragging anyway and I'm not having any problems with it.
>>>>>> Monica
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Hank Arnold" <rasilon(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4b7a610a$0$31281$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
>>>>>>> On 2/15/2010 1:21 PM, Monica wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've always used Window's defrag program. This is adequate or can
>>>>>>>> I/Should
>>>>>>>> I be using something better?
>>>>>>>> A newsletter I got today mentioned a program called UltraDefrag. It's
>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>> so maybe it's worth what it costs<g>
>>>>>>>> What would you guys suggest?
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Monica
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been using UltraDefrag for a while. It's good and works fast. A lot
>>>>>>> faster than the built in XP defrag....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hank Arnold
>>>>>>> Microsoft MVP
>>>>>>> Windows Server - Directory Services
>>>>>>> http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/personal-pc-assistant/
>>>>> Why do you obsess over filling your hard drive? A full hard drive
>>>>> doesn't make a computer run any worse than an empty hard drive, as long
>>>>> as you have enough space for your software to run.
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes no sense to buy a 300GB hard drive (probably sold as a 320GB
>>>>> hard drive) and then to be afraid to use more than a fraction of its
>>>>> capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one can decide for you how many generations of backup to keep. That's
>>>>> entirely your decision, based on your comfort level.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example: I backup my system partition daily and maintain the most
>>>>> recent seven backups. But that's me. Other people may have different
>>>>> ideas. What works for you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Daddy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, technically you don't want to fill a hard drive up to capacity
>>>> so you can leave room for virtual memory, etc.. . I think Monica
>>>> is on the right track but perhaps just being a bit over cautious but
>>>> if it works for her, then don't change it <g>. I know it's nice to
>>>> have a lot of space.
>>> I never said the OP - or anyone else - should "fill a hard drive up to
>>> capacity."
>>>
>>> However, the OP could easily add an extra 200GB of programs and/or data
>>> to her hard drive and not suffer any performance hits or problems due
>>> solely to the fact that more disk space is occupied.
>>>
>>> Daddy
>>
>>
>> Well you did say "A full hard drive doesn't make a computer run any
>> worse than an empty hard drive...." so I thought you implied that
>> you could fill it up to near capacity, no???
>>
>> Well I agree if it's just storing data but if it's installed programs,
>> I will disagree. As I said, Monica's way of thinking is fine, if
>> that works for her.
>
>What does it matter whether the 200GB are programs or data? Heck, it
>could be 200GB of junk. The mere fact that the hard drive contains 200
>billion extra bytes (give or take) is not going to affect its
>performance. The platters will spin just as quickly. The actuator will
>moves the arms just as rapidly. The operating system, processor, memory,
>etc. will function just as well.
>
>On the other hand, you could install a 1MB (or smaller) application,
>driver, or update and bring the machine to its knees (and you with it.)
>
>Performance is affected by /what/ you install, not /how much/ you
>install. To intentionally leave vacant the vast majority of the disk
>space you bought and paid for under the guise of avoiding trouble is
>incorrect.
>
>Daddy


In theory I agree but in the real world I don't. Unless you are very
careful what programs you install (how many are after gigs of
programs), you will slow the drive down because they will go into the
startup or have processes running. On the other hand, just storing
data (not installed) will do nothing in theory or practice unless you
store to capacity. You need room for swap files, etc.. .