Files on Desktop?

  • Thread starter Thread starter oldbattler
  • Start date Start date
O

oldbattler

My boss and I disagree on this - is there really anything wrong with
having a lot of files on your desktop? Sure...it's not the best way to
stay organized, but can it really cause any problems with the operating
system?
I'd love ton know what people think.
A
 
The operating system won't suffer - it doesn't care. But it's not a smart way to work.

Instead of storing files on the desktop, store shortcuts to the files. Clicking on the shortcut opens the file in exactly the same way it would open if the file itself sat on the desktop.

Steven
 
Hi,

A agree it is a bad practice, but I have seen a desktop with so many
file and folder they stretched across two or three 19" monitors. This
guy has to use search of find particular files on his desktop. And the
system runs fine like this!!!
 
HAHAHA now that is some funny stuff...
Ohh and by the way, I agree also. Nothing really bad can come out of it but
it is a bad practice. But then again, that is my opinion and you may see
otherwise.
 
You are all making assertions without proof.

1. In a average domain it will lengthen logon/off times. Because My Docs is redirected so user files aren't normally part of the profile. Desktops aren't normally redirected.

2. The desktop is a work area. What is the point of putting shortcuts on the desktop - to have two files for every one file. I only save files to the desktop. Why would anyone want files they are working on in My Docs. Possibly the only reason is to make them hard to access.
 
Sorry, David. This time you're all wet.

How many bytes big is a desktop shortcut? Or are you afraid that Windows won't be able to keep track of all those shortcuts?

Here's one reason (of many) I don't store files on the desktop: I keep all my user files on a separate partition for safety. If Windows goes south on me, I could lose my desktop - along with the rest of my system - but I won't lose any documents. Same thing when I restore my system partition from an image. My documents don't go back in time.

Now I've read enough of your posts to know that you like to come back with some demeaning snide remark when someone challenges you, so fire away. I can take it.

Steven


"David Candy" <.> wrote in message You are all making assertions without proof.

1. In a average domain it will lengthen logon/off times. Because My Docs is redirected so user files aren't normally part of the profile. Desktops aren't normally redirected.

2. The desktop is a work area. What is the point of putting shortcuts on the desktop - to have two files for every one file. I only save files to the desktop. Why would anyone want files they are working on in My Docs. Possibly the only reason is to make them hard to access.
 
Well this begs the question why your desktop isn't on the other partition.

Your safety statement doesn't bear up. If your docs are important they will be backed up. Why do you assume your data is safe on another partition. They are just as likely to be lost if there is a hardware fault. A software fault is more likely on a data partition

My My Docs has 7904 files and folders. My Desktop has 56.

Shortcuts take up no diskspace (files under 1.5K don't). They are merely intrusive. Why would one go to enourmous effort to manage shortcuts when one can just put the file there.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/12/thank_you_and_g.html#comments
=================================================
Sorry, David. This time you're all wet.

How many bytes big is a desktop shortcut? Or are you afraid that Windows won't be able to keep track of all those shortcuts?

Here's one reason (of many) I don't store files on the desktop: I keep all my user files on a separate partition for safety. If Windows goes south on me, I could lose my desktop - along with the rest of my system - but I won't lose any documents. Same thing when I restore my system partition from an image. My documents don't go back in time.

Now I've read enough of your posts to know that you like to come back with some demeaning snide remark when someone challenges you, so fire away. I can take it.

Steven


"David Candy" <.> wrote in message You are all making assertions without proof.

1. In a average domain it will lengthen logon/off times. Because My Docs is redirected so user files aren't normally part of the profile. Desktops aren't normally redirected.

2. The desktop is a work area. What is the point of putting shortcuts on the desktop - to have two files for every one file. I only save files to the desktop. Why would anyone want files they are working on in My Docs. Possibly the only reason is to make them hard to access.
 
I guess I don't see the "enormous effort" involved in clicking on My Documents or My Recent Documents on the Start menu. And I believe a system partition is more likely to get corrupted than a partition holding data.

A hardware failure will impact files no matter where they are stored. That's why a good backup scheme involves backing up externally from time to time.

Personally, I like the convenience of imaging partitions, and being able, if need be, to restore my system partition without worrying about my user files.

But, as people in the U.S. like to say..."It's a free country."

Steven

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message Well this begs the question why your desktop isn't on the other partition.

Your safety statement doesn't bear up. If your docs are important they will be backed up. Why do you assume your data is safe on another partition. They are just as likely to be lost if there is a hardware fault. A software fault is more likely on a data partition

My My Docs has 7904 files and folders. My Desktop has 56.

Shortcuts take up no diskspace (files under 1.5K don't). They are merely intrusive. Why would one go to enourmous effort to manage shortcuts when one can just put the file there.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/12/thank_you_and_g.html#comments
=================================================
Sorry, David. This time you're all wet.

How many bytes big is a desktop shortcut? Or are you afraid that Windows won't be able to keep track of all those shortcuts?

Here's one reason (of many) I don't store files on the desktop: I keep all my user files on a separate partition for safety. If Windows goes south on me, I could lose my desktop - along with the rest of my system - but I won't lose any documents. Same thing when I restore my system partition from an image. My documents don't go back in time.

Now I've read enough of your posts to know that you like to come back with some demeaning snide remark when someone challenges you, so fire away. I can take it.

Steven


"David Candy" <.> wrote in message You are all making assertions without proof.

1. In a average domain it will lengthen logon/off times. Because My Docs is redirected so user files aren't normally part of the profile. Desktops aren't normally redirected.

2. The desktop is a work area. What is the point of putting shortcuts on the desktop - to have two files for every one file. I only save files to the desktop. Why would anyone want files they are working on in My Docs. Possibly the only reason is to make them hard to access.
 
you are way off base here. any file takes up disk space, and depending on
your cluster size, that 1.5k shortcut could be taking up as much space the
file it points to itself. check a shortcuts "size on disk" properties
sometime.


:
 
I'm sorry you're wrong. And size on disk is just maths, nothing to do with storage space so there is not much point looking. Files under 1.5 K are stored with it's entry in the MFT. Unless your MFT is full and this file happens to make it grow then it will take up no extra space than if there was no file.
 
and where is the MFT? its on the disk. that 1.5k shortcut is indeed stored in
the mft, hence on the disk. and the mft stores data in clusters, just as the
rest of the disk does, and there is a minimum cluster size that is certainly
above 1.5k, so each 1.5k shortcut is going to take up more space than its own
small size would suggest. if size on disk was just maths as you suggest, why
would they even bother to list it?
 
Because the maths is accurate on Fat32. Windows guesses a lot. Stop thinking it knows stuff. It guesses.

Nonetheless creating a 1.5 kb file will require no diskspace 9999/10 000 times. The space is already allocated.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Back
Top