Disk Cleanup: Compress old files or not?

[Guest]

Need advice . . .

I'm considering using the Disk Cleanup option to compress old files. My
boot partition¹ is 4.5GB and I currently have 870MB free space. Last evening
I received a system warning that I'd gotten down to 80MB of free space. That
lead to some immediate action to purge my temp files and now… to this inquiry.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the general implications of
compressing old files, but I still have a couple questions:
a. how can one determine, after the fact, *which* files actually got
compressed — so that once might later exercise an option to UNcompress them.
I'm inferring that any and all types of files might get compressed.
b. if one wanted to really minimize the chances of degrading performance —
vis-à-vis having to dynamically uncompress and recompress files one might
need to access — what would you recommend for the “Compress after†setting?
The default seems to be 50 days. Perhaps a larger number (e.g., 90, 120,
180) would be better?

Finally, I'd recommend any advice and/or experiences anyone would care to
share regarding using this option to reclaim disk space.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
________
—Thri
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________
1. FWIW, my boot partition is used for system files and whatever
application-related files my apps insisted on placing there when I installed
them. I've installed my apps into my D-partition and reserved my E-partition
for data and media files.

 

[Earl Grey]

Greetings:

The real solution for you is a bigger hard disk or a bigger system
partition. The other possible solutions - compression, clean caches,
uninstall programs, etc. - are certainly helpful but they don't address
the real issue: You need more room. These days, a new hard disk more
than ten times the size of your 4.5GB partition is real cheap.

Compressed files and folders are identifiable because their names are in
blue.

The number of days has nothing to do with the compression itself...the
Wizard compresses "old" files and the number you choose is the answer to
the question: After how many days of non-use is a file considered to be
"old"?

Whether or not to compress old files is a matter of opinion, so remember
this is only my opinion: If you're at the point where you need to
consider disk compression to run your computer, you need more disk.
Compression is not the answer. Your work will be slowed for a few
seconds while Windows uncompresses files, and they're not automatically
re-compressed afterward.

Earl Grey

 

[Guest]

Earl-

Thanks for the reply. While I can't argue with your opinion that the right
way to solve my problem would be a bigger harddrive or partition, I also know
that neither will happen any time soon. I think I can continue to get by
with my 4.5GB partition. In any event, I'm going to have to try.

Regarding the "old" files parameter (50 days), yes, that's my understanding
as well: by giving a number like 50, one tells the program that it should not
compress a file if it has been accessed within the last 50 days.

Your last quoted comment (below) was a bit of a surprise. Previous to that
comment, I'd been under the impression (vis-à-vis other forum postings and/or
tech pages) that if one needs to access a compressed file, then Windows will
dynamically uncompress it and then recompress it automatically, once it's no
longer being actively used. But you sound very confident that this is not
the case; i.e., that in fact, once the system dynamically uncompresses the
file, it *stays* uncompressed untill one re-runs the compression program
again and that same file happens to get included. Am I reading you correctly
on this? And (I mean no offense by this but...) if so, are you sure?

Thanks again for the help.

—Thri


:
-----------------

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Need advice . . .

I'm considering using the Disk Cleanup option to compress old files.
My
boot partition¹ is 4.5GB

That's *much* too small for almost everyone. Anything you do short of making
it bigger or replacing it with a bigger drive will at best be a stopgap
measure.

and I currently have 870MB free space. Last
evening I received a system warning that I'd gotten down to 80MB of
free space. That lead to some immediate action to purge my temp
files and now. to this inquiry.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the general
implications of compressing old files, but I still have a couple
questions:
a. how can one determine, after the fact, *which* files actually got
compressed

They will be blue instead of black when you see them in My Computer or
Windows Explorer.

Finally, I'd recommend any advice and/or experiences anyone would
care to share regarding using this option to reclaim disk space.

Don't do it. As I said, you should address the *real* issue, and get
yourself a much bigger partition--at least 10-20GB.

1. FWIW, my boot partition is used for system files and whatever
application-related files my apps insisted on placing there when I
installed them. I've installed my apps into my D-partition and
reserved my E-partition for data and media files.

You don't say how big your drive is, how large the other two partitions are,
or how free they are, but if you have sufficient overall free space, I would
repartition the drive with a third-party tool. Otherwise, you need to buy a
bigger drive.

Also, a word on your partitioning scheme: Most people who create a separate
partition for their program files do so because they think that if they ever
have to reinstall Windows, their program files will be safe in a separate
partition and they won't have to reinstall the programs.

In fact, that is false. All programs, except for a rare trivial one, have
many associated files and entries pointing to them within Windows, in the
registry and elsewhere. So if you ever have to reinstall Windows, you also
have to reinstall all your programs.

So there is really no advantage to having program files in a separate
partition. Programs will all have to be reinstalled if Windows has to be. I
recommend that program files be kept in the same partition as Windows is in.
The fewer partitions you have, the less likely it is that you will run out
of space on one while still having lots of space left on another.

Separating data from Windows can be useful for many people. My view is that
most people's partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme.
If, for example, you backup by creating a clone or image on the entire
drive, then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you
backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by having all
data in a separate partition.

Rarely, if ever, does a partioning scheme with more than two partitions make
sense, except for those running multiple operating systems.

 

[Earl Grey]

Neither Windows nor any third-party program of which I am aware
automatially re-compresses a file that was formerly compressed.

Earl Grey

Earl-

Thanks for the reply. While I can't argue with your opinion that the right
way to solve my problem would be a bigger harddrive or partition, I also know
that neither will happen any time soon. I think I can continue to get by
with my 4.5GB partition. In any event, I'm going to have to try.

Regarding the "old" files parameter (50 days), yes, that's my understanding
as well: by giving a number like 50, one tells the program that it should not
compress a file if it has been accessed within the last 50 days.

Your last quoted comment (below) was a bit of a surprise. Previous to that
comment, I'd been under the impression (vis-Ã -vis other forum postings and/or
tech pages) that if one needs to access a compressed file, then Windows will
dynamically uncompress it and then recompress it automatically, once it's no
longer being actively used. But you sound very confident that this is not
the case; i.e., that in fact, once the system dynamically uncompresses the
file, it *stays* uncompressed untill one re-runs the compression program
again and that same file happens to get included. Am I reading you correctly
on this? And (I mean no offense by this but...) if so, are you sure?

Thanks again for the help.

—Thri


:
-----------------

Greetings:

The real solution for you is a bigger hard disk or a bigger system
partition
:
[snip]
:
the Wizard compresses "old" files and the number you choose is the answer
to the question: After how many days of non-use is a file considered to be
"old"?
:
[snip]
:
[dynamically uncompressed files a]re not automatically
re-compressed afterward.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Forget the Disk CleanUp option.

If your C drive is formatted as NTFS another potential gain arises
with your operating system on your C drive. In the Windows Directory
of your C partition you will have some Uninstall folders in your
Windows folder typically: $NtServicePackUninstall$ and
$NtUninstallKB282010$ etc. These files may be compressed or not
compressed. If compressed the text of the folder name appears in blue
characters. If not compressed you can compress them. Right click on
each folder and select Properties, General, Advanced and check the box
before Compress contents to save Disk Space. On the General Tab you
can see the amount gained by deducting the size on disk from the
size. Folder compression is only an option on a NTFS formatted drive /
partition.

You are most unlikely to ever access these files so compressing them
will not slow your system and the process is in any event easily
reversed providing you still have sufficient free space, which present
a problem.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Guest]

Ken-

Thanks for your helpful and thorough response. My comments follow yours.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote [>]

[Your 4.5GB boot partition would be] *much* too small for
almost everyone. Anything you do short of making it bigger
or replacing it with a bigger drive will at best be a
stopgap measure.

-----------------------------------------------
In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you're right, but I still think I
can get by for some time to come. I could be wrong, I know... anyway,
explanation below.

[Your compressed files] will be blue instead of black when
you see them in My Computer or Windows Explorer.

-----------------------------------------------
I think my original question on this point must have been poorly stated. I
understand that you can configure WinXP to color compressed files and folders
(default color being blue), so that once you're viewing the contents of a
particular directory, you can readily tell which files and subdirectories are
compressed. What I meant to ask is this:
• would there be a way to very quickly *locate* all the compressed files
and folders? By "very quickly" I mean something akin to a search request vs.
having to manually examine the contents of every directory and subdirectory
in the partition. I suspect the answer is "no."
• a related question: if a subdirectory contains some files that are
compressed (and blue) and others that are not (black), will that directory
itself show up as blue? Or will it only appear blue if *all* of its contents
are compressed (blue)?

You don't say how big your drive is, how large the other two
partitions are, or how free they are, but if you have
sufficient overall free space, I would repartition the drive
with a third-party tool.

-----------------------------------------------
Here's the partition info for my 40GB drive: Total / Used / Free (~GB)
C: 04.50 / 03.65 / 00.85
D: 05.50 / 02.30 / 03.20
E: 27.20 / 13.40 / 13.80

Also, a word on your partitioning scheme: Most people who
create a separate partition for their program files do so
because they think that if they ever have to reinstall
Windows, their program files will be safe in a separate
partition and they won't have to reinstall the programs.
In fact, that is false.

-----------------------------------------------
Having replaced the HD that came with my Inspiron 1000, about 15 months into
its use, I'm well aware of just how right you are; although I was already
cognizant of this prior to that experience.

All programs, except for a rare
trivial one, have many associated files and entries pointing
to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere. So
if you ever have to reinstall Windows, you also have to
reinstall all your programs...

-----------------------------------------------
While I agree in a general way, it seems that some programs have more than
others and MS products (particulary MS Office) seem to have the most. More
importantly, my experience with a lot of non-MS products is that while they
may leave footprints within boot partition directories, the files themselves
are usually of a very modest size. This is what I took into consideration
when I set up the partition sizes, although, admittedly, I underestimated how
much of my C-drive would be used by MS Office 2000 — which, ironically, (with
the exception of Outlook) I seldom use.

So there is really no advantage to having program files in a
separate partition.

-----------------------------------------------
• Because files only get into my D & E partitions if I "put" them there,
and because I'm careful about backing up files when I'm making changes, etc.,
I don't include these partitions in my System Restore checkpoints. So, I
think I'm saving space on my C-drive in terms of the System Restore files
which I assume (perhaps, incorrectly) are being kept there.
• Even though reinstalling Windows into my boot partition necessitates
reinstalling all my apps in my D-partition, retaining the directory structure
of my D-partition has saved me some time and effort. Also, a lot of my
programs have been installed from downloaded <setup.exe> type files which I
retain within each application's subdirectory structure, along with various
backup and help files, usually of my own creation.
:: While I can't argue with your overarching point — that partitioning
one's drive in such a way increases the probability of ending up with
insufficient space in the boot partition — these still seem like legitimate
advantages to me, albeit, perhaps modest in the eyes of many.

Separating data from Windows can be useful for many people.
My view is that most people's partitioning scheme should be
based on their backup scheme. If, for example, you backup
by creating a clone or image on the entire drive, then a
single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you
backup only your data, then the backup process is
facilitated by having all data in a separate partition.

-----------------------------------------------
Very instructive. Thank you.


I'll end this post by saying the reason I think I can continue to get by
with my 4.50GB boot partition is that I just don't see there being a big
increase, from this point forward, of new files being added to it. While I
may be adding a new app now and then (onto my D-drive), they will most likely
*not* be MS apps, and so I anticipate very little additonal space being taken
up by their boot partition footprints. I expect to be using Office 2000 for
as long as it (i.e., Outlook) works properly and continues to meet my needs;
so I don't need to worry about how much additional space, say, Office 2007
would take up, since I have no plans to ever install it. I guess there is
the possibility that with every Windows Update I do, more and more of my
C-drive is getting used. And that's probably a legitimate concern to remain
cognizant of.

Finally, let me reiterate my appreciation for your instructive response.
The bottom line is that once I can afford it, I very well might buy some good
partition-adjustment software — especially if I continue to have a good
amount of unused space on my D-drive. If there's any brand you'd recommend,
I'm all ears.

Thanks again for the help.
________
—Thri
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Guest]

Found the culprit!

It's probably worth mentioning that I did some more poking around and
discovered the sudden and by far biggest culprit in chewing up my boot
partition space: Apple QuickTime. Last night I caught up on a lot of movie
trailers on the Apple site. Mostly, I looked at the "HD" trailers. I
believe that normally, these get purged after each viewing, but for some
reason, that didn't happen last night. They just piled up on my harddrive...
about 800MB worth! I've removed the files from my C-drive and adjusted the
Window Registry to have future downloads directed to another partition.

My new numbers for my boot partition are:
C: 04.50 / 02.90 / 01.60

This explains a lot and tends to encourage me in my believe that I can skate
along with my 4.50GB C-drive. I only hope I'm right.

Thanks again for the help.
________
—Thri
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
P.S. It would seem that it's really the Application (-generated) Data one
really has to look out for!

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Replies inline

[Your 4.5GB boot partition would be] *much* too small for
almost everyone. Anything you do short of making it bigger
or replacing it with a bigger drive will at best be a
stopgap measure.

-----------------------------------------------
In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you're right, but I still
think I
can get by for some time to come. I could be wrong, I know...
anyway,
explanation below.

Ken overstates his case. Not everyone can afford the best solution.

-----------------------------------------------
I think my original question on this point must have been poorly
stated. I
understand that you can configure WinXP to color compressed files
and folders
(default color being blue), so that once you're viewing the contents
of a
particular directory, you can readily tell which files and
subdirectories are
compressed. What I meant to ask is this:
• would there be a way to very quickly *locate* all the compressed
files
and folders? By "very quickly" I mean something akin to a search
request vs.
having to manually examine the contents of every directory and
subdirectory
in the partition. I suspect the answer is "no."

Not one that I am aware of.

• a related question: if a subdirectory contains some files that
are
compressed (and blue) and others that are not (black), will that
directory
itself show up as blue? Or will it only appear blue if *all* of its
contents
are compressed (blue)?

You can compress folders and files within the folder. You can copy
uncompressed files to a compressed folder. The folder remains blue
notwithstanding that some files in the folder are compressed and some
not compressed.

-----------------------------------------------
Here's the partition info for my 40GB drive: Total / Used / Free
(~GB)
C: 04.50 / 03.65 / 00.85
D: 05.50 / 02.30 / 03.20
E: 27.20 / 13.40 / 13.80


-----------------------------------------------
Having replaced the HD that came with my Inspiron 1000, about 15
months into
its use, I'm well aware of just how right you are; although I was
already
cognizant of this prior to that experience.

-----------------------------------------------
While I agree in a general way, it seems that some programs have
more than
others and MS products (particulary MS Office) seem to have the
most. More
importantly, my experience with a lot of non-MS products is that
while they
may leave footprints within boot partition directories, the files
themselves
are usually of a very modest size. This is what I took into
consideration
when I set up the partition sizes, although, admittedly, I
underestimated how
much of my C-drive would be used by MS Office 2000 — which,
ironically, (with
the exception of Outlook) I seldom use.


-----------------------------------------------
• Because files only get into my D & E partitions if I "put" them
there,
and because I'm careful about backing up files when I'm making
changes, etc.,
I don't include these partitions in my System Restore checkpoints.
So, I
think I'm saving space on my C-drive in terms of the System Restore
files
which I assume (perhaps, incorrectly) are being kept there.

In the System Volume Information folder.

• Even though reinstalling Windows into my boot partition
necessitates
reinstalling all my apps in my D-partition, retaining the directory
structure
of my D-partition has saved me some time and effort. Also, a lot of
my
programs have been installed from downloaded <setup.exe> type files
which I
retain within each application's subdirectory structure, along with
various
backup and help files, usually of my own creation.
:: While I can't argue with your overarching point — that
partitioning
one's drive in such a way increases the probability of ending up
with
insufficient space in the boot partition — these still seem like
legitimate
advantages to me, albeit, perhaps modest in the eyes of many.

In general terms there are many ways of working round this problem
unless you set the system drive exceptionally small or you are short
of free disk space in global terms.


It can also be beneficial to separate files that rapidly fragment from
those that do not. Thus Outlook Express folders rapidly fragment
because they are written to regularly. How many older Excel or Word
files are kept for record purposes so that they do not fragment,
whereas current files being regularly updated do fragment. It is there
logical to keep archived data files seperate from files in use.
Placing a pagefile in it's own partition on a second drive also
reduces fragmentation of other files were they to be in the same
partition as the pagefile.

I'll end this post by saying the reason I think I can continue to
get by
with my 4.50GB boot partition is that I just don't see there being a
big
increase, from this point forward, of new files being added to it.
While I
may be adding a new app now and then (onto my D-drive), they will
most likely
*not* be MS apps, and so I anticipate very little additonal space
being taken
up by their boot partition footprints. I expect to be using Office
2000 for
as long as it (i.e., Outlook) works properly and continues to meet
my needs;
so I don't need to worry about how much additional space, say,
Office 2007
would take up, since I have no plans to ever install it. I guess
there is
the possibility that with every Windows Update I do, more and more
of my
C-drive is getting used. And that's probably a legitimate concern
to remain
cognizant of.

Three defaults can be trimmed if you have not already done so. System
Restore 12%, Recycle Bin 10% and Temporary Internet Files 3%. The
latter is easily relocated to another partition.

Finally, let me reiterate my appreciation for your instructive
response.
The bottom line is that once I can afford it, I very well might buy
some good
partition-adjustment software — especially if I continue to have a
good
amount of unused space on my D-drive. If there's any brand you'd
recommend,
I'm all ears.

BootIt NG is shareware so can get it on a trial basis. I have not
tried it but I probably will be doing so as the latest version is
compatible with Windows Vista. The other well known
partitioning tool is Partition Magic but the latest version is not
compatible with Windows Vista. You have to purchase Partition Magic
and Symantec tend to charge for updates.
http://www.bootitng.com/utilities.html

To move the Outlook Express Store Folder select in Outlook Express
Tools, Options, Maintenance, Store Folder, Change.
http://www.tomsterdam.com/insideoe/files/store.htm

My Documents is one of a number of system created Special Folders
including My Pictures and My Music. These can more easily be relocated
using Tweak Ui. Download TweakUI, one of the MS powertoys, from here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/powertoys.asp

In TweakUi select My Computer, Special Folders. You can scroll down to
see the full list of Special Folders to the left of the Change
Location button.

You may also need to change Default File locations in the Microsoft
Office programmes you choose to move the My Documents folder. For Word
go to Tools, Options, File Locations, highlight Documents, click on
Modify and change file path. For Excel go to Tools, Options, General
and change default file path.



--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken-

Thanks for your helpful and thorough response. My comments follow
yours.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote [>]

[Your 4.5GB boot partition would be] *much* too small for
almost everyone. Anything you do short of making it bigger
or replacing it with a bigger drive will at best be a
stopgap measure.

OK, if acquiring more disk space isn't possible right now, then you have to
do what you have to do.

[Your compressed files] will be blue instead of black when
you see them in My Computer or Windows Explorer.

-----------------------------------------------
I think my original question on this point must have been poorly
stated. I understand that you can configure WinXP to color
compressed files and folders (default color being blue), so that once
you're viewing the contents of a particular directory, you can
readily tell which files and subdirectories are compressed. What I
meant to ask is this:
. would there be a way to very quickly *locate* all the compressed
files and folders? By "very quickly" I mean something akin to a
search request vs. having to manually examine the contents of every
directory and subdirectory in the partition. I suspect the answer is
"no."

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. As far as I know, the answer to your
restated question is no, as you suspect.

. a related question: if a subdirectory contains some files that are
compressed (and blue) and others that are not (black), will that
directory itself show up as blue? Or will it only appear blue if
*all* of its contents are compressed (blue)?

I'm not completely sure, so I'll refrain from answering and hope that
someone else here will supply an accurate answer.

-----------------------------------------------
Here's the partition info for my 40GB drive: Total / Used / Free (~GB)
C: 04.50 / 03.65 / 00.85
D: 05.50 / 02.30 / 03.20
E: 27.20 / 13.40 / 13.80

With only 18GB free free, it would appear that just repartitioning isn't a
long term answer to your problem. A 40GB drive is very small these days.



Glad to hear that.

-----------------------------------------------
While I agree in a general way, it seems that some programs have more
than others and MS products (particulary MS Office) seem to have the
most. More importantly, my experience with a lot of non-MS products
is that while they may leave footprints within boot partition
directories, the files themselves are usually of a very modest size.
This is what I took into consideration when I set up the partition
sizes, although, admittedly, I underestimated how much of my C-drive
would be used by MS Office 2000 - which, ironically, (with the
exception of Outlook) I seldom use.


-----------------------------------------------
. Because files only get into my D & E partitions if I "put" them
there, and because I'm careful about backing up files when I'm making
changes, etc., I don't include these partitions in my System Restore
checkpoints. So, I think I'm saving space on my C-drive in terms of
the System Restore files which I assume (perhaps, incorrectly) are
being kept there.

System Restore essentially backs up the operating system and not data or
applications. So any such difference would be minimal, if anything.

. Even though reinstalling Windows into my boot partition
necessitates reinstalling all my apps in my D-partition, retaining
the directory structure of my D-partition has saved me some time and
effort. Also, a lot of my programs have been installed from
downloaded <setup.exe> type files which I retain within each
application's subdirectory structure, along with various backup and
help files, usually of my own creation.
one's drive in such a way increases the probability of ending up with
insufficient space in the boot partition - these still seem like
legitimate advantages to me, albeit, perhaps modest in the eyes of
many.

OK. I don't want to talk you into anything you don't want to do. As long as
you understand the issues, I'm happy, and you're certainly free to make your
own decisions.



You're welcome again.

I'll end this post by saying the reason I think I can continue to get
by with my 4.50GB boot partition is that I just don't see there being
a big increase, from this point forward, of new files being added to
it. While I may be adding a new app now and then (onto my D-drive),
they will most likely *not* be MS apps, and so I anticipate very
little additonal space being taken up by their boot partition
footprints. I expect to be using Office 2000 for as long as it
(i.e., Outlook) works properly and continues to meet my needs; so I
don't need to worry about how much additional space, say, Office 2007
would take up, since I have no plans to ever install it. I guess
there is the possibility that with every Windows Update I do, more
and more of my C-drive is getting used. And that's probably a
legitimate concern to remain cognizant of.

Not only that, my personal experience, and that of many others, is that
things you have no plans to install today may become desirable or even
necessary tomorrow. The world constantly changes and most of us change with
it.

However, based on what you say, it may well be that you can manage to get by
in your current situation for longer than I thought you could. You are
certainly in a much better position to judge that than I am.

Finally, let me reiterate my appreciation for your instructive
response.
The bottom line is that once I can afford it, I very well might buy
some good partition-adjustment software - especially if I continue to
have a good amount of unused space on my D-drive. If there's any
brand you'd recommend, I'm all ears.

I have personally never needed and never used repartitioning software, so I
can't speak from experience. However many other MVPs highly recommend the
shareware product "BootIt Next Generation." If I were looking for such a
product, that's the one I'd try first.

 

[Guest]

Ken-

Thanks again for all the help, information and the words of wisdom (below).

I think at some point down the road, I'll definitely have to think seriously
about getting a bigger HD; I know 40GB is very much on the small side. If I
hadn't been so broke when I swapped the original drive 16 months ago, I
would've (and now regret not having) gotten a larger drive at the time. Oh
well.

Anyway, thanks again for all the help. Have a good weekend.
________
—Thri
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Guest]

Gerry-

Thanks for the throrough reply. You've given me a lot to think about . . .
some really good tips. Very much appreciated.

All the best,
________
—Thri
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

thricipio wrote:

Thanks again for all the help, information and the words of wisdom
(below).

I think at some point down the road, I'll definitely have to think
seriously about getting a bigger HD; I know 40GB is very much on the
small side. If I hadn't been so broke when I swapped the original
drive 16 months ago, I would've (and now regret not having) gotten a
larger drive at the time. Oh well.

Understood. We all can't always afford to do what we want to do, and
sometimes you have to wait.

Anyway, thanks again for all the help. Have a good weekend.

You're always welcome. You have a good weekend too.