You speak for the OP now? Let him decide what is and is not helpful to
him. I was previously involved in a thread with him where this material
was discussed. He wanted to know where the different named folders came
from, as well as what to delete.
My corrections to you post may be minor to you, but it was
misinformation that I felt required correction, particularly in light of
my previous interaction on the subject with the OP. They are relevant
to what the OP asked in both this thread and in his earlier thread.
"near blitz of verbose comments"??
Oh please! My response to you totaled 11 brief sentences ...3 of which
consisted of one word each.
""list of things this idiot [me] got wrong in" order to show us all how
knowledgeable you are" ??
LOL! You've been on newsgroups how long? It seems to me a long time,
giving good help. Certainly you should be aware by now that in Usenet
if someone was trying to infer you were an idiot they would simply call
you an idiot.
As for me trying to show you all how knowledgeable I am, that's hardly
worth answering. I'm not here to play "I'm smarter than you" games. I
come here to help users where I can. When I see incorrect info, I
correct it. Likewise, when my info is incorrect, I expect someone to
point it out, and indeed they have on many occasions, often in far less
cordial terms than I used. I said nothing in my reply to you that
warrants your reaction. Apparently being told you were incorrect on the
points I raised is the sole reason for your ire. That's too bad for
you....I use corrections given to me as a learning opportunity. Are you
here to "look smart"?
I did look through your post a few times before I responded, and you did
not make mention of anything I corrected, later in the post . If you
look more closely at my reply, I agreed with you on your last point,
where I made the "verbose blitz" response of "True"
I'm not sure why you added all these questions (below) at the end of
your reply...do you really need them answered?
And the fact that NT-based OSes running on FAT32 volumes also name the
bin "RECYCLED" rather than the "RECYCLER" answer I formerly gave -
does Win9x/ME use a folder named RECYCLED ?
Yes, it does....because it uses the FAT or FAT32 file system, not
because it is a Win9x OS.
Do NT-based Windows use a folder named RECYLER when using NTFS?
No, they use a folder named Recycler, when using the NTFS file system.
I assume this was a typo on your part.
What proportion of all NT-based installations are there that use
FAT32?
I'm not going to start looking up statistics, if they even exist.
Windows XP, which is what we are referring to in this group, was
installed with FAT32 quite a bit when it was first released, by some
OEMs and by small shops, as well as by "enthusiasts" who did not trust
NTFS. In fact up until some time in 2005, ACER (which also owns Gateway
and eMachines) was using FAT32 on all their XP laptops.
Did the OP already mention the fact that one or more of his "bin"
folders he could find were called "RECYLER" ?
Again, I assume this is a typo. The OP stated he had Recycler and
Recycled folders. I already know from a previous thread of his that he
is trying to determine not only what is not being used on his system,
but also where they all came from.
How relevant or helpful do you really think your additions were?
Very.
Lighten up, Tim....you are finding insult where none exists.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
http://dts-l.net/
Tim Meddick said:
Your comments are unwanted and unhelpful to the OP.
While most of the minor corrections you made on my post were, for the
most part, valid enough, they were not at all relevant to what the OP
was simply trying to achieve.
You could have made your comments a whole lot easier for the OP and
others to understand instead of giving, as it seemed to me, a near
blitz of verbose comments arranged into a "list of things this idiot
[me] got wrong" in order to show us all how knowledgeable you are.
There was NO humility to your words, they were tactless and if you
look through both my post and your "corrections" you will find that
some of what you amend I had already made mention of, elsewhere in my
post.
And the fact that NT-based OSes running on FAT32 volumes also name the
bin "RECYCLED" rather than the "RECYCLER" answer I formerly gave -
does Win9x/ME use a folder named RECYCLED ?
Do NT-based Windows use a folder named RECYLER when using NTFS?
What proportion of all NT-based installations are there that use
FAT32?
Did the OP already mention the fact that one or more of his "bin"
folders he could find were called "RECYLER" ?
How relevant or helpful do you really think your additions were?
The OP wanted to know what to do / what was safe to delete.
Your post
added nothing further to answer those questions.
glee said:
inline....
Incorrect. It is a product of the file system being used, *not* of
the operating system being used.
Only partitions using the NTFS file system use a hidden folder named
Recycler. You won't find it on an NT OS that is using FAT32.
Partitions using the FAT32 file system use a hidden folder named
Recycled. Not only Win9x versions of Windows, but also NT versions
that are using FAT32.
You will have a Recycled folder on any FAT32 partiton in XP, and it
will also exist as a leftover on any partition that was converted
from FAT32 to NTFS.
The folders will be visible in Windows Explorer if "Show hidden files
and folders" is selected in Folder Options.
No. The Recycler folder on the NTFS file system in XP will always be
displayed with a folder icon in Explorer, not with a Bin icon, when
"Show hidden files abd folders" is enabled.
