Reduce recycle bin size to below 1%
in [Windows XP]
|
Prev: Office2003
Next: Windows Backups
From: Bob I on 10 Jun 2010 15:05 Mint wrote: > On Jun 10, 12:30 pm, "Badger" <jerry...(a)msn.com> wrote: > >>Right click the desktop Icon and select properties, >>Then select don't move files to the recycle bin. >>You will see the max size window grey out. >> >>"Mint" <chocolatemint77...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >>news:34d3ecdd-c04d-4cb5-9318-89a6b9b703a8(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>>Is there a way to reduce the recycle bin size to below 1%? >> >>>Registry changes O.K. >> >>>Thanks. > > > I asked to reduce the size, not eliminate it entirely. Based on your "criteria", you need to use an operating system that permits "megabytes" as the size measurement instead of percent.
From: Daave on 10 Jun 2010 16:37 Mint wrote: > On Jun 10, 12:30 pm, "Badger" <jerry...(a)msn.com> wrote: >> Right click the desktop Icon and select properties, >> Then select don't move files to the recycle bin. >> You will see the max size window grey out. >> >> "Mint" <chocolatemint77...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:34d3ecdd-c04d-4cb5-9318-89a6b9b703a8(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> >>> Is there a way to reduce the recycle bin size to below 1%? >> >>> Registry changes O.K. >> >>> Thanks. > > I asked to reduce the size, not eliminate it entirely. For what reason? 1% is rather reduced, don't you agree? What benefit could be gained by reducing it further? Or is this an exercise in curiosity?
From: Bert Hyman on 10 Jun 2010 16:58 In news:eTOL8yNCLHA.3972(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl "Daave" <daave(a)example.com> wrote: > Mint wrote: > >> >> I asked to reduce the size, not eliminate it entirely. > > For what reason? 1% is rather reduced, don't you agree? Well, 1% of a 1.5TB drive is quite a lot of space. > What benefit could be gained by reducing it further? I wonder that myself, but don't often try to second-guess other posters. I'm just assuming that the value is the maximum size to which the bin will be allowed to grow and that it doesn't occupy that much space when it's not being used. If it's actually pre-allocated space, then reducing the size to a sensible number would be of value. > Or is this an exercise in curiosity? Maybe. Even if that's what it is, it's still worth trying to answer. If the value is really kept as an integer percentage of the disk size, then I'd say there doesn't appear to be any integer between 1 and zero :-) -- Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert(a)iphouse.com
From: Daave on 10 Jun 2010 17:10 Bert Hyman wrote: > In news:eTOL8yNCLHA.3972(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl "Daave" > <daave(a)example.com> wrote: > >> Mint wrote: >> >>> >>> I asked to reduce the size, not eliminate it entirely. >> >> For what reason? 1% is rather reduced, don't you agree? > > Well, 1% of a 1.5TB drive is quite a lot of space. Perhaps, but it's all relative. The remainder of that drive is still 99 times larger!
From: Bob I on 10 Jun 2010 17:55
Bert Hyman wrote: > In news:eTOL8yNCLHA.3972(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl "Daave" > <daave(a)example.com> wrote: > > >>Mint wrote: >> >> >>>I asked to reduce the size, not eliminate it entirely. >> >>For what reason? 1% is rather reduced, don't you agree? > > > Well, 1% of a 1.5TB drive is quite a lot of space. > > >>What benefit could be gained by reducing it further? > > > I wonder that myself, but don't often try to second-guess other posters. > > I'm just assuming that the value is the maximum size to which the bin > will be allowed to grow and that it doesn't occupy that much space when > it's not being used. > XP merely doesn't actually delete the files until the threshold is reached, then the space of the first deleted file in the "list" is marked as unused so the space can be overwritten. |