Mike
Reduce Recycle Bin 5%
Reduce System Restore 7%
Relocate Temporary Internet Files 3%
NTFS compression uninstall folders 3% plus
Sub total
18% plus
The remainder are difficult to estimate not knowing enough about how the
computer is used
Relocate Outlook Express Store 0% to 7%
Relocate My Documents Cannot be calculated
Relocate My Music Cannot be calculated
The last three headings can contribute a little or a lot. Without
knowing more about the programmes being used it is difficult to quantify
the precise areas and potential for savings. The user could be using
backup software and leaving the backup on C.
To be using 14 gb means either a lot of programmes or some are taking up
a lot of space. This suggests a review of programmes to see whether any
are likely to be required in the future might be productive. A review
might also reveal a few resource hungry programmes where there are
better substitutes. An example, which readily comes to mind, is Foxit
for Adobe Acrobat Reader -better PDF reader performance with significant
disk space savings.
If you are sitting at the target computer it does not take long to
assess the potential for savings. The OP can readily do that by looking
at each of my suggestions in turn and it does not take a lot of time.
"Add the newly freed up space to what is already free and there still
isn't enough free space to defrag on a 14gb partition."
This statement is disproved above. You are also basing your argument on
the 15% "rule" and it is not rocket science to defragment where there is
less. You should also note that relocating reduces fragmentation in the
C partition so it needs to be done less often.
"If the OP does decide to delete a bunch of stuff and it exceeds what
is now a very small recycle bin, the overflow will be lost forever."
The "stuff" likely to be deleted has been relocated elsewhere. How long
do you need to keep your trash?
Continuing inline.
Gerry
Recycle Bin allocates 10% of partition space by default. On a 14gb
partition, that is not exactly a huge amount of space. Reducing it by
half will free up approximately 625mb..
Restore points have a 12% allocation, so the free space gained will
not be much more than was gained by reducing Recycle Bin..
Add the newly freed up space to what is already free and there still
isn't enough free space to defrag on a 14gb partition..
Removing the update uninstall files releases a small amount of space
and is a desperate measure in real terms..
This was not suggested. Read the suggestion again. It saves 420 mb here.
Not my idea of a small amount of space!
The consequences of what you suggested:
If the OP does decide to delete a bunch of stuff and it exceeds what
is now a very small recycle bin, the overflow will be lost forever..
If the OP cuts down System Restore space, it will not take much to
displace existing restore points which may or may not be useful in
the event of a problem. In your estimation, only one is required, but
not everybody thinks that way.
My suggestion does not limit retention of restore points to one. Do you
ever throw away your junk?
So the ability to recover files from Recycle bin has been
compromised, as has the ability to have a choice of restore points,
and for what? There still will not be enough free space to even
defrag with any certainty.
Disproved above!
The OP has already moved photos etc out of MY DOCUMENTS, so there may
not be too much of a saving to be made by moving what is left.
Speculation on your part!
Temporary Internet file space is also a percentage of the partition
size, so the saving will again most likely be small as the partition
size is only 14gb.
Is 400 mb a small saving?
I have no idea why you think that a possible 4.2gb can be saved on
the OP's computer
The maximum possible.
In the meantime, there is 80gb free space on the second partition of
which, by use of a FREE and very stable partition manager, part could
be allocated to the Boot partition and solve the OPs problem for a
considerable while.
Not a market leader!
I see that you gave another person exactly the same advice and in a
scenario where no partition or drive size info was made public.
Without knowing the context how do you expect me to respond?
I
stick to the view that your suggestions are only temporary until such
time as more space can be allocated from a second partition, or a
larger hard drive purchased in the event that the entire drive is
full, especially where some remedial work has been done and there
still is nothing like enough free space available.
All things in life are temporary. That is life. Why will it be necessary
to allocate more space from the second partition? If the entire drive is
full the sizing of partitions ceases to have any relevance so your point
is irrelevant.
During the course of this discussion, I have been chopping up and
rejoining partitions using Easeus on a seven year old XP machine
without incident. I would be interested to know what you have against
partition managers, especially modern ones.
Are you comparing your computer skills to those typically seeking help
here? I would not expect a typical user to achieve the standard I would
expect you to achieve. Just because you have made changes without
incident does not mean others will have the same outcome.
I am not against Partition Managers. On the contrary I prefer
partitioned to non-partitioned disks. I see the advantages, whereas
others prefer not to partition.
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
