M
Mint
Is there a way to reduce the recycle bin size to below 1%?
Registry changes O.K.
Thanks.
Registry changes O.K.
Thanks.
B
Badger
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.
Then select don't move files to the recycle bin.
You will see the max size window grey out.
B
Badger
Since the recycle bin expands and contracts as needed, why do you want to
eliminate it?
Just curious.
eliminate it?
Just curious.
M
Mint
I asked to reduce the size, not eliminate it entirely.
M
Mint
See previous reply.
B
Bob I
Mint said:
Based on your "criteria", you need to use an operating system that
permits "megabytes" as the size measurement instead of percent.
D
Daave
Mint said:
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?
B
Bert Hyman
In "Daave"
Well, 1% of a 1.5TB drive is quite a lot of space.
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.
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
Well, 1% of a 1.5TB drive is quite a lot of space.
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.
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
D
Daave
Bert said:
Perhaps, but it's all relative. The remainder of that drive is still 99
times larger!
B
Bob I
Bert said:
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.
J
John John - MVP
Mint said:
I don't think that it can do fractions (1.5% or .5% or whatever). It's
governed by the Percent value at
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\BitBucket
If you can figure out how to enter 0.5 (.5%) there let us know how its done.
John
M
Mint
No, with my 120 Gb drive, 1.2 Gb is WAY more than I need for my
recycle bin.
I don't recall every even having a file that big.
Andy
M
Mint
Thanks, reg wouldn't take .5.
Can you ask M.S. to fix it for Win 8.
Andy
T
Tim Meddick
But having a Recycle Bin max capacity of 1% on a 120Gb HD resulting in
1.2Gb max sixe - is only going to take up that space when files have been
sent to it (i.e. actually been deleted via Recycle Bin)!!
In other words, if you don't delete 1.2 Gb worth of files (with RB enabled)
then the Recycle Bin is just never going to get full, is it?
The reason you have a setting where one is able to set a maximum size for
the Bin is to make sure a Recycle Bin full of useless old files cannot take
up too much space on smaller drives that need inventive use of space and
where space is at a premium.
But when you have a drive-size that has "room to spare" and will never be
even half-filled....
If you could make the max-size, say, 500Mb, what then?
There's no benefit to the Recycle Bin reaching the full capacity - it's not
like when you do, whistles and bells go off or that the bin automatically
does something!
Should the Recycle Bin ever actually reach the max-size you set, no more
files can be sent to it and will have to permanently deleted, with no
chance of recovery.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
No, with my 120 Gb drive, 1.2 Gb is WAY more than I need for my
recycle bin.
I don't recall every even having a file that big.
Andy
1.2Gb max sixe - is only going to take up that space when files have been
sent to it (i.e. actually been deleted via Recycle Bin)!!
In other words, if you don't delete 1.2 Gb worth of files (with RB enabled)
then the Recycle Bin is just never going to get full, is it?
The reason you have a setting where one is able to set a maximum size for
the Bin is to make sure a Recycle Bin full of useless old files cannot take
up too much space on smaller drives that need inventive use of space and
where space is at a premium.
But when you have a drive-size that has "room to spare" and will never be
even half-filled....
If you could make the max-size, say, 500Mb, what then?
There's no benefit to the Recycle Bin reaching the full capacity - it's not
like when you do, whistles and bells go off or that the bin automatically
does something!
Should the Recycle Bin ever actually reach the max-size you set, no more
files can be sent to it and will have to permanently deleted, with no
chance of recovery.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
No, with my 120 Gb drive, 1.2 Gb is WAY more than I need for my
recycle bin.
I don't recall every even having a file that big.
Andy
G
Greg Russell
In
Au contraire, MonSewer ...
When the R.B. is active and gets full, any additional file deletions via the
GUI Windows Explorer will result in a popup dialog informing the user that
the deleted file cannot be saved to the R.B., with the dialog choice to
delete it permanently or cancel the requested delete.
Whether you consider that a "benefit" or not is entirely your subjective
opinion, but don't spread your ignorance about the R.B. as you are doing.
Tim Meddick said:
Au contraire, MonSewer ...
When the R.B. is active and gets full, any additional file deletions via the
GUI Windows Explorer will result in a popup dialog informing the user that
the deleted file cannot be saved to the R.B., with the dialog choice to
delete it permanently or cancel the requested delete.
Whether you consider that a "benefit" or not is entirely your subjective
opinion, but don't spread your ignorance about the R.B. as you are doing.
T
Tim Meddick
I quote myself :
"Should the Recycle Bin ever actually reach the max-size you set, no more
files can be sent to it and will have to permanently deleted, with no
chance of recovery"
Does it say anywhere that there WON'T be a Windows "pop-up" dialog box?
It is you who are libellous, saying that I spread ignorance....
Really, who doesn't know that you get an obligatory dialog box informing
that the Recycle Bin is at max-capacity?
What I was pointing out was; there's no benefit in reaching full capacity -
nothing happens except the Recycle Bin can no-longer accept any more files
and, as it cannot be stored in the Recycle Bin, must be permanently deleted
(or, bloody obviously, not deleted at all).
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"Should the Recycle Bin ever actually reach the max-size you set, no more
files can be sent to it and will have to permanently deleted, with no
chance of recovery"
Does it say anywhere that there WON'T be a Windows "pop-up" dialog box?
It is you who are libellous, saying that I spread ignorance....
Really, who doesn't know that you get an obligatory dialog box informing
that the Recycle Bin is at max-capacity?
What I was pointing out was; there's no benefit in reaching full capacity -
nothing happens except the Recycle Bin can no-longer accept any more files
and, as it cannot be stored in the Recycle Bin, must be permanently deleted
(or, bloody obviously, not deleted at all).
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
G
Greg Russell
In
You're a poster-child for all the miscommunication vagaries that result from
top-posting, forcing people to read a conversation backwards ... you were
quoted accurately and in context, such as it were.
Learn to quote what you're responding to *above* your response, then people
won't won't have to guess your context.
Tim Meddick said:
You're a poster-child for all the miscommunication vagaries that result from
top-posting, forcing people to read a conversation backwards ... you were
quoted accurately and in context, such as it were.
Learn to quote what you're responding to *above* your response, then people
won't won't have to guess your context.
A
Alan Edwards
Thanks, reg wouldn't take .5.
Can you ask M.S. to fix it for Win 8.
Andy
The problem seemed to have been addressed in Vista, as it allows a MB
entry.
....Alan
T
Tim Meddick
I think it may be you who is the "child" here.
I take the time and trouble to defend myself in as polite and coherent a
manner as possible, and all you do is want to trade insults and attempt to
intimidate someone who is [probably] twice your age.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
P.S. On Top-Posting - I have to be true to my convictions, and belief that
one should treat others in the exact way you would like to be treated.
As such, I will continue to top-post and edit (snip) where and how I see
fit.
Readers are free to choose to avoid reading my replies if they so-wish, and
no-one is "forcing" anyone to do anything in a newsgroup. They are not
obliged to read through a post they feel is difficult to understand because
I choose to place the reply [newer] text first.
And they are certainly not obliged to, having read through a post that was
supposedly too difficult to read, to then complain about reading it.
I have always found it bothersome in the extreme, to have to wade through
mountains of "past-quoted-post" to get to the "new stuff", as so many don't
bother to edit away text that is not necessary to include in every post,
and so I post how I would very much like to read posts.
I take the time and trouble to defend myself in as polite and coherent a
manner as possible, and all you do is want to trade insults and attempt to
intimidate someone who is [probably] twice your age.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
P.S. On Top-Posting - I have to be true to my convictions, and belief that
one should treat others in the exact way you would like to be treated.
As such, I will continue to top-post and edit (snip) where and how I see
fit.
Readers are free to choose to avoid reading my replies if they so-wish, and
no-one is "forcing" anyone to do anything in a newsgroup. They are not
obliged to read through a post they feel is difficult to understand because
I choose to place the reply [newer] text first.
And they are certainly not obliged to, having read through a post that was
supposedly too difficult to read, to then complain about reading it.
I have always found it bothersome in the extreme, to have to wade through
mountains of "past-quoted-post" to get to the "new stuff", as so many don't
bother to edit away text that is not necessary to include in every post,
and so I post how I would very much like to read posts.
B
Badger
OK, then reduce the numbers in the Max size window.