Hello
I have copied 43 folders of files to a second/new external drive to keep separately as backups. A few have sub-folders with the content split in to groups, but most don't have their content divided at all. I copied them across just by dragging and dropping a copy, not by using any copy programme or anything more elaborate.
I have just checked by bringing up the "Properties" window for each one's original file and its copied file, and comparing them. The "size" is identical between all originals and all copies, however there are a random few (no clear pattern or similarity) where the size-on-disc for the copy is smaller than the size-on-disc for the original ... by anything from just a couple of hundred bytes to a couple of thousand.
My knowledge of filesizes and how a computer handles them or sets them etc is zero, and my first thought was that these are copies that are failed in some regard and that I should delete them and recopy those few again.
But then I thought that perhaps as long as the "size" is the same there is perhaps a legitimate reason for the "size-on-disc" disparity, and I opened a couple of those files at random and they appeared okay at first glance.
But I am the first to say that I really don't have the knowledge to know that there isn't some issue beneath the surface, such as some of the file/document's properties perhaps being incomplete/damaged/missing so that - for example - something might not print properly even though it seems fine when viewed onscreen.
So could someone who knows more on the topic than I do - which is just about everybody, lol - advise me please?
If the discrepancy means that something might be corrupted I'd want to delete and recopy, but if there's a legitimate reason for it and the files are fine as long as the "size" showing is identical, it would be a pointless waste of time.
Maybe I'm just being thrown because almost all of the copies' "size-on-disc" were exactly identical to the originals' "size-on-disc", which to the non-expert mind seems a massive coincidence if the *trend* is for some arbitrary (?) allowance to be applied over the actual filesize when copying ... but maybe that's just another example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing .. !
I'd be very grateful!
Thank you.
I have copied 43 folders of files to a second/new external drive to keep separately as backups. A few have sub-folders with the content split in to groups, but most don't have their content divided at all. I copied them across just by dragging and dropping a copy, not by using any copy programme or anything more elaborate.
I have just checked by bringing up the "Properties" window for each one's original file and its copied file, and comparing them. The "size" is identical between all originals and all copies, however there are a random few (no clear pattern or similarity) where the size-on-disc for the copy is smaller than the size-on-disc for the original ... by anything from just a couple of hundred bytes to a couple of thousand.
My knowledge of filesizes and how a computer handles them or sets them etc is zero, and my first thought was that these are copies that are failed in some regard and that I should delete them and recopy those few again.
But then I thought that perhaps as long as the "size" is the same there is perhaps a legitimate reason for the "size-on-disc" disparity, and I opened a couple of those files at random and they appeared okay at first glance.
But I am the first to say that I really don't have the knowledge to know that there isn't some issue beneath the surface, such as some of the file/document's properties perhaps being incomplete/damaged/missing so that - for example - something might not print properly even though it seems fine when viewed onscreen.
So could someone who knows more on the topic than I do - which is just about everybody, lol - advise me please?
If the discrepancy means that something might be corrupted I'd want to delete and recopy, but if there's a legitimate reason for it and the files are fine as long as the "size" showing is identical, it would be a pointless waste of time.
Maybe I'm just being thrown because almost all of the copies' "size-on-disc" were exactly identical to the originals' "size-on-disc", which to the non-expert mind seems a massive coincidence if the *trend* is for some arbitrary (?) allowance to be applied over the actual filesize when copying ... but maybe that's just another example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing .. !
I'd be very grateful!
Thank you.
