From: Daddy on
Ben Myers wrote:
> 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

I've never run a registry cleaner and my 7+ year old Dimension 4500
(soon to be superseded by a Studio XPS 8100) still runs fast and smooth.
Ready for another shock? I've never used a third-party defragmenter
either.

Well, to be absolutely honest: Once a year I install a trial version of
a third-party defragmenter, just to see its opinion of my hard disk. I
am invariably told that my hard disk is 'EXCELLENT' and does not need
defragmenting.

(And in case you're wondering, I have installed and uninstalled numerous
applications, updates and drivers and generally done all the other
things that people say will 'bloat' my registry.)

In the earlier, pre-NT years of Windows (oh how I miss DOS) it was wise
advice to 'clean' the Windows registry. It was also wise advice to do a
clean install once a year. Those days are long behind us.

Since then, no one has proved that cleaning or defragmenting the Windows
registry makes any practical difference at all. There are no
standardized before-and-after measurements to prove this, no lab
testing...only appeals to our emotions.

Daddy
From: Monica on
Yes I do. I guess there are worse things for me to do with my time <lol>
Srsly, it's nothing that takes a lot of time or thought. Like keeping my
house
tidy, I clean as I go.

"Ben Myers" <ben_myers(a)charter.net> wrote in message
news:hlifje$set$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

People who obsess about system efficiency have time on
> their hands... Ben Myers


From: Monica on
This is the one I'm going to download and try on my backup drive that
actually does need defragged.


"Ben Myers" <ben_myers(a)charter.net> wrote in message
news:hlifke$set$2(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Defraggler. Trust me on this one... Ben Myers


From: Ben Myers on
On 2/18/2010 12:02 AM, Daddy wrote:
> Ben Myers wrote:
>> 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
>
> I've never run a registry cleaner and my 7+ year old Dimension 4500
> (soon to be superseded by a Studio XPS 8100) still runs fast and smooth.
> Ready for another shock? I've never used a third-party defragmenter either.
>
> Well, to be absolutely honest: Once a year I install a trial version of
> a third-party defragmenter, just to see its opinion of my hard disk. I
> am invariably told that my hard disk is 'EXCELLENT' and does not need
> defragmenting.
>
> (And in case you're wondering, I have installed and uninstalled numerous
> applications, updates and drivers and generally done all the other
> things that people say will 'bloat' my registry.)
>
> In the earlier, pre-NT years of Windows (oh how I miss DOS) it was wise
> advice to 'clean' the Windows registry. It was also wise advice to do a
> clean install once a year. Those days are long behind us.
>
> Since then, no one has proved that cleaning or defragmenting the Windows
> registry makes any practical difference at all. There are no
> standardized before-and-after measurements to prove this, no lab
> testing...only appeals to our emotions.
>
> Daddy

What works for you works for you. But I can only conclude after tuning
up and otherwise working on hundreds of systems (maybe even thousands)
that what works for you definitely does not work for others.

Time and again, a system shows up here with THOUSANDS of files in
%temp%, a badly fragmented registry with hundreds of useless entries,
many megabytes of Internet Explorer temp files (AN IDIOTIC RELIC FROM
DIALUP DAYS!!!!), highly fragmented Outlook mailboxes, and the owner
wonders what happened that the system got so slow. The answer is that
the owner is not too computer literate and wants to treat his computer
like a simple appliance, maybe a toaster. That's fine if they don't
want to learn the basics of what to do to speed up a system.

If anyone would like to pay me the extra bucks necessary to do more
controlled "lab" measurements on my clients' systems, I'll be happy to
do so, and prepare all the necessary reports. During the last century,
I spent enough time in huge computer rooms designing and executing
mainframe benchmark tests, and interpreting the tea leaves and the
results. I think I know the drill.

Dude, this is not emotion here, just real world experience based on
results with client computers, not a sample of one, a Dimension 4500.

.... Ben Myers

From: Daddy on
Ben Myers wrote:
> On 2/18/2010 12:02 AM, Daddy wrote:
>> Ben Myers wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> I've never run a registry cleaner and my 7+ year old Dimension 4500
>> (soon to be superseded by a Studio XPS 8100) still runs fast and smooth.
>> Ready for another shock? I've never used a third-party defragmenter
>> either.
>>
>> Well, to be absolutely honest: Once a year I install a trial version of
>> a third-party defragmenter, just to see its opinion of my hard disk. I
>> am invariably told that my hard disk is 'EXCELLENT' and does not need
>> defragmenting.
>>
>> (And in case you're wondering, I have installed and uninstalled numerous
>> applications, updates and drivers and generally done all the other
>> things that people say will 'bloat' my registry.)
>>
>> In the earlier, pre-NT years of Windows (oh how I miss DOS) it was wise
>> advice to 'clean' the Windows registry. It was also wise advice to do a
>> clean install once a year. Those days are long behind us.
>>
>> Since then, no one has proved that cleaning or defragmenting the Windows
>> registry makes any practical difference at all. There are no
>> standardized before-and-after measurements to prove this, no lab
>> testing...only appeals to our emotions.
>>
>> Daddy
>
> What works for you works for you. But I can only conclude after tuning
> up and otherwise working on hundreds of systems (maybe even thousands)
> that what works for you definitely does not work for others.
>
> Time and again, a system shows up here with THOUSANDS of files in
> %temp%, a badly fragmented registry with hundreds of useless entries,
> many megabytes of Internet Explorer temp files (AN IDIOTIC RELIC FROM
> DIALUP DAYS!!!!), highly fragmented Outlook mailboxes, and the owner
> wonders what happened that the system got so slow. The answer is that
> the owner is not too computer literate and wants to treat his computer
> like a simple appliance, maybe a toaster. That's fine if they don't
> want to learn the basics of what to do to speed up a system.
>
> If anyone would like to pay me the extra bucks necessary to do more
> controlled "lab" measurements on my clients' systems, I'll be happy to
> do so, and prepare all the necessary reports. During the last century,
> I spent enough time in huge computer rooms designing and executing
> mainframe benchmark tests, and interpreting the tea leaves and the
> results. I think I know the drill.
>
> Dude, this is not emotion here, just real world experience based on
> results with client computers, not a sample of one, a Dimension 4500.
>
> ... Ben Myers
>

You're talking around me, Ben. Anyway, I've made my point. I'm done.

As always, when it comes to hardware I take notes when you talk. Hope
you've had some experience with the XPS 8100.

Daddy