From: Monica on
OK, maybe I should have said (or added to what I said) that I'm careful
about WHAT I put on my computer, which in turn keeps down the amt of space
used. Before you know it, it's easy to have piled on a lot of programs you
don't need or use (I have an aversion to clutter <g>) and add to the chances
of "bringing the machine to it's knees". My C drive is for programs. My
backups store my data, music, photos, videos and downloaded exes.
A lot of programs means a fatter registry and more processes. A leaner
registry and fewer processes running makes for a faster access, right?
Anyway, it's works for me and I manage to keep a smooth running and zippy
computer :) (knock on wood!) As for backup history, I had 10 levels until
yesterday. I deleted the oldest 7.
Monica


"RnR" <rnrtexas(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfpon599ro4avt14pnn0otnhopog8jkp1l(a)4ax.com...
> 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
>>>


From: Daddy on
Monica wrote:
> OK, maybe I should have said (or added to what I said) that I'm careful
> about WHAT I put on my computer, which in turn keeps down the amt of space
> used. Before you know it, it's easy to have piled on a lot of programs you
> don't need or use (I have an aversion to clutter <g>) and add to the chances
> of "bringing the machine to it's knees". My C drive is for programs. My
> backups store my data, music, photos, videos and downloaded exes.
> A lot of programs means a fatter registry and more processes. A leaner
> registry and fewer processes running makes for a faster access, right?
> Anyway, it's works for me and I manage to keep a smooth running and zippy
> computer :) (knock on wood!) As for backup history, I had 10 levels until
> yesterday. I deleted the oldest 7.
> Monica
>
>
> "RnR" <rnrtexas(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dfpon599ro4avt14pnn0otnhopog8jkp1l(a)4ax.com...
>> 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
>
>

"A leaner registry and fewer processes running makes for a faster
access, right?"

Actually, that's not right. But it's a widely hyped myth that's easy for
a non-technical person to buy into. After all, if your closet is messy,
it takes longer to find the shirt you want, so if your registry is
messy... Except that registry access doesn't work that way.

It's a similar story with processes. The /number/ of processes is
meaningless. What matters is how many of them are actually running and
how much hardware resources they occupy.

Daddy
From: RnR on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:57:38 -0600, "Monica" <reese(a)iluvlabs.com>
wrote:

>OK, maybe I should have said (or added to what I said) that I'm careful
>about WHAT I put on my computer, which in turn keeps down the amt of space
>used. Before you know it, it's easy to have piled on a lot of programs you
>don't need or use (I have an aversion to clutter <g>) and add to the chances
>of "bringing the machine to it's knees". My C drive is for programs. My
>backups store my data, music, photos, videos and downloaded exes.
>A lot of programs means a fatter registry and more processes. A leaner
>registry and fewer processes running makes for a faster access, right?
>Anyway, it's works for me and I manage to keep a smooth running and zippy
>computer :) (knock on wood!) As for backup history, I had 10 levels until
>yesterday. I deleted the oldest 7.
>Monica
>
>


Monica, I don't think you need my advice. You sound like you know
what you are doing <grin>.

And as to a defrag program, likely comes down to what your prefer. I
would just suggest that if you decide to use one, download from a
reliable source to try to avoid spyware, viri, etc.. .
From: Ben Myers on
On 2/17/2010 8:33 PM, Daddy wrote:
> Monica wrote:
>> OK, maybe I should have said (or added to what I said) that I'm
>> careful about WHAT I put on my computer, which in turn keeps down the
>> amt of space used. Before you know it, it's easy to have piled on a
>> lot of programs you don't need or use (I have an aversion to clutter
>> <g>) and add to the chances of "bringing the machine to it's knees".
>> My C drive is for programs. My backups store my data, music, photos,
>> videos and downloaded exes.
>> A lot of programs means a fatter registry and more processes. A leaner
>> registry and fewer processes running makes for a faster access, right?
>> Anyway, it's works for me and I manage to keep a smooth running and
>> zippy computer :) (knock on wood!) As for backup history, I had 10
>> levels until yesterday. I deleted the oldest 7.
>> Monica
>>
>>
>> "RnR" <rnrtexas(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfpon599ro4avt14pnn0otnhopog8jkp1l(a)4ax.com...
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> "A leaner registry and fewer processes running makes for a faster
> access, right?"
>
> Actually, that's not right. But it's a widely hyped myth that's easy for
> a non-technical person to buy into. After all, if your closet is messy,
> it takes longer to find the shirt you want, so if your registry is
> messy... Except that registry access doesn't work that way.
>
> It's a similar story with processes. The /number/ of processes is
> meaningless. What matters is how many of them are actually running and
> how much hardware resources they occupy.
>
> Daddy

Again, please, let's not over-generalize here. Whether they are running
or not, processes occupy memory. Same thing with programs loaded when
the system starts up. More memory used by processes and programs leaves
less memory for you, the person using the computer, to run programs and
access data to get things done.

In a system with a lot of memory, for example a 32-bit Windows XP system
with 2GB or more, a few extra processes and programs here and there make
no difference. On a system that is memory constrained, say 32-bit
Windows XP with 512MB and an on-board graphics controller borrowing some
of the memory, get rid of unwanted and unnecessary processes and
programs can make a substantial difference. So can defragging (back on
topic), because the information about a highly fragmented file, when
accesses, takes up lots more system memory than a contiguous file. So
once again, the amount of system memory is the constraining factor.

It is probably a very effective use of time and money to upgrade system
memory that to keep the registry, files, processes and resident programs
all neat and tidy. But there comes a time when paying some attention to
system housekeeping pays off.

Finally, a leaner and unfragmented registry DOES enable Windows to start
up more quickly, and it needs all the help to can get, any version.
And, once again, because much of the registry becomes memory resident
after booting up, the amount of available and useful memory to you, the
user, is more or less, dependent on registry size.

Suffice it to say that people who never pay attention to tuning their
system can end up with a slow slug in anywhere from a few months to a
year or two. People who obsess about system efficiency have time on
their hands... Ben Myers
From: Ben Myers on
On 2/17/2010 8:44 PM, RnR wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:57:38 -0600, "Monica"<reese(a)iluvlabs.com>
> wrote:
>
>> OK, maybe I should have said (or added to what I said) that I'm careful
>> about WHAT I put on my computer, which in turn keeps down the amt of space
>> used. Before you know it, it's easy to have piled on a lot of programs you
>> don't need or use (I have an aversion to clutter<g>) and add to the chances
>> of "bringing the machine to it's knees". My C drive is for programs. My
>> backups store my data, music, photos, videos and downloaded exes.
>> A lot of programs means a fatter registry and more processes. A leaner
>> registry and fewer processes running makes for a faster access, right?
>> Anyway, it's works for me and I manage to keep a smooth running and zippy
>> computer :) (knock on wood!) As for backup history, I had 10 levels until
>> yesterday. I deleted the oldest 7.
>> Monica
>>
>>
>
>
> Monica, I don't think you need my advice. You sound like you know
> what you are doing<grin>.
>
> And as to a defrag program, likely comes down to what your prefer. I
> would just suggest that if you decide to use one, download from a
> reliable source to try to avoid spyware, viri, etc.. .

Defraggler. Trust me on this one... Ben Myers