Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #11972 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-12 18:16 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-22 20:37 -0700 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 91 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 18:16 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 10:50 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 20:21 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-09-17 14:12 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 17:06 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-17 15:30 -0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-17 21:17 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 21:47 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-17 22:06 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-18 08:45 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 09:06 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 14:54 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-09-18 17:45 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:07 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:20 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:21 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-18 17:19 -0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-09-18 23:38 +0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 17:49 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-09-18 22:26 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 13:29 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 22:34 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-18 18:45 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 11:54 +0000
[OT] light Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2016-10-01 14:48 +0000
Re: [OT] light Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 13:39 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 10:12 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:15 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:54 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 22:47 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-18 17:24 -0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 23:01 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 00:42 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 23:30 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 10:35 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-09-12 10:54 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 18:38 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 19:43 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-13 12:11 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-12 21:13 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 13:48 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 10:40 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 23:25 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Joe <joecool@ihaveenoughspam.net> - 2016-09-12 21:30 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-13 09:37 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-13 11:13 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-14 08:47 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-15 14:45 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-16 16:16 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-16 16:49 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-16 18:44 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 09:27 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:04 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-18 19:22 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-18 11:58 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-18 21:33 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:25 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 07:38 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-13 10:59 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 19:20 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-09-14 13:17 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-14 14:59 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-15 11:38 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 19:45 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:14 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-15 20:20 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-15 11:43 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-16 15:41 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-16 23:56 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-16 19:51 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 13:09 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-17 10:26 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-17 14:39 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:14 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Vladimir Vučićević <vladimir@vucicevic.iz.rs> - 2016-09-14 15:21 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-16 14:59 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-16 11:58 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-19 23:57 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-20 22:19 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-10-21 01:59 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-21 13:45 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-10-21 14:24 -0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-21 20:46 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-10-21 22:58 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-10-21 21:58 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat bashley@gmail.com - 2016-10-21 14:26 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-22 01:11 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 23:01 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-22 11:52 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 20:37 -0700
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 01:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nubsqh$6ms$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #12212 |
On 2016-10-20, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 19/10/2016 23:57, BartC wrote: >> >> Until today I found out that 50 PER CENT of my hard drive was being used >> to store successive 'restore' points for Windows. AFAIK I've never >> needed to use one, but imagine using up HALF my drive without evening >> asking! > > It gets worse. After gaining back 110GB of MY OWN disk space yesterday, > I had a look at another machine normally used by kids. > > That had 450GB total, and 300GB used, but I could only find evidence of > a fraction of that. 'Treesize' only reported 110GB space used in 200 or > 300,000 files. I agree, that's pretty egregious. The only copy of Windows I ever owned/used on personal hardware was Win98SE, and it came installed on a 4GB harddrive with room for your stuff. Obviously I wouldn't want to run 98SE these days, but it sure was an OS that required less hard drive space. I upgraded to a 20GB drive so I could dual boot Linux comfortably, and thought I had more space than I'd ever need. And it was true, for a while! Hard to know whether to be angry at companies that make assumptions on your behalf, or the consumer mentality that encourages it. Sure are a lot of people who don't know how a computer works or have any interest in learning. Making life 'easy' for those people leads to a lot of design decisions that are imperfect for the rest of us. Being able to easily revert to a restore point seems like a good thing, if you view it in the right light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 13:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nud2lk$ahp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12213 |
On 21/10/2016 02:59, RS Wood wrote: > On 2016-10-20, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 19/10/2016 23:57, BartC wrote: >>> >>> Until today I found out that 50 PER CENT of my hard drive was being used >>> to store successive 'restore' points for Windows. AFAIK I've never >>> needed to use one, but imagine using up HALF my drive without evening >>> asking! >> >> It gets worse. After gaining back 110GB of MY OWN disk space yesterday, >> I had a look at another machine normally used by kids. >> >> That had 450GB total, and 300GB used, but I could only find evidence of >> a fraction of that. 'Treesize' only reported 110GB space used in 200 or >> 300,000 files. > > I agree, that's pretty egregious. The only copy of Windows I ever > owned/used on personal hardware was Win98SE, and it came installed on > a 4GB harddrive with room for your stuff. Obviously I wouldn't want > to run 98SE these days, but it sure was an OS that required less hard > drive space. > > I upgraded to a 20GB drive so I could dual boot Linux comfortably, and > thought I had more space than I'd ever need. And it was true, for a > while! The first HD I tested out (to add one to a computer I was developing) was 5MB (that is, 0.005GB). We eventually sold 10MB units with customer machines: 0.01GB. They worked beautifully. The equivalent of nearly 30 360KB 5" floppies, you had the convenience of having all the data in one place and with a very fast transfer rate. > Hard to know whether to be angry at companies that make assumptions on > your behalf, or the consumer mentality that encourages it. Sure are a > lot of people who don't know how a computer works or have any interest > in learning. Making life 'easy' for those people leads to a lot of > design decisions that are imperfect for the rest of us. They are the wrong decisions: defaulting to using 50% of a drive for restore points is going to be confusing for someone buying a machine with 500GB, with 450GB initially available, then being puzzled why the drive is full after only 200GB of data has been added. So is allowing uncapped cache sizes by programs like Firefox. Now, this machine has an uncapped size but the total cache is only 65MB. My other machine is also uncapped but it's reached nearly 200,000MB despite being rarely used. Something is not right. I can just about deal with it, but the average consumer won't be able to. That 500GB will fill even sooner than expected. (System Volume Information is hidden but shows up with programs like Treesize. Cache files also reside in hidden folders but do not show up at all. And even if Windows Explorer showed them, the Windows way of deleting them simply moves them to the recycle bin! Then they need to be deleted permanently from there; twice as much work. I use the command line and so far it's taken FIFTEEN HOURS to delete 90% of the files: 3 million of 3.3 million. Having that many files in one directly is not efficient!) > Being able to > easily revert to a restore point seems like a good thing, if you view > it in the right light. What does it even mean? /I/ don't know how I can make use of that. The times the machine has gone wrong, it's been no use at all. But, together with Firefox, using up 99% of drive space leaving no room for the user's data or workspace is certainly not helpful either! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 14:24 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <877f91ehtj.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #12217 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > So is allowing uncapped cache sizes by programs like Firefox. Now, this > machine has an uncapped size but the total cache is only 65MB. My other > machine is also uncapped but it's reached nearly 200,000MB despite being > rarely used. Clinging, as I do, to the trailing edge of web tech, I haven't seen this. But one moderny browser feature of which I have heard comes to mind as a potential resources hog: browser prefetch. Do late-model versions of Firefox parse a rendered page and immediately begin to fetch the data referenced by all URLs on that page? If so, does it cache them? If so, when, if ever, is that cache purged? Is it possible that gigs of data you've never asked for, let alone seen, are lurking on HD? -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 20:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nudram$8dn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12218 |
On 21/10/2016 18:24, Mike Spencer wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> So is allowing uncapped cache sizes by programs like Firefox. Now, this >> machine has an uncapped size but the total cache is only 65MB. My other >> machine is also uncapped but it's reached nearly 200,000MB despite being >> rarely used. > > Clinging, as I do, to the trailing edge of web tech, I haven't seen > this. But one moderny browser feature of which I have heard comes to > mind as a potential resources hog: browser prefetch. > > Do late-model versions of Firefox parse a rendered page and > immediately begin to fetch the data referenced by all URLs on that > page? If so, does it cache them? If so, when, if ever, is that cache > purged? I've no idea how it works, what it does or what is actually inside those files. But once I'd cleared the cache, I started Firefox. All it did was go to the homepage (google), and that immediately generated 60 cache files (1MB total). Then I went to youtube. Now I'm at 160 files. In short, within a matter of minutes of doing very little, it had generated 400 files of nearly 20MB. There appears to be no mechanism to ever delete a file unless a cap is imposed (which it has now - 20MB). Yet the same Firefox doesn't appear to that on another machine, also uncapped. It's a mystery. > Is it possible that gigs of data you've never asked for, let alone > seen, are lurking on HD? Yes, that's exactly the point of my posts. In a matter of days I've recovered 300GB of space (that would entirely fill 60,000 of those early 5MB drives I mentioned - probably a whole month's production from the Far East). And 190GB of that took 17 hours to delete. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 22:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1610212256020.23150@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #12218 |
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Mike Spencer wrote: > > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> So is allowing uncapped cache sizes by programs like Firefox. Now, this >> machine has an uncapped size but the total cache is only 65MB. My other >> machine is also uncapped but it's reached nearly 200,000MB despite being >> rarely used. > > Clinging, as I do, to the trailing edge of web tech, I haven't seen > this. But one moderny browser feature of which I have heard comes to > mind as a potential resources hog: browser prefetch. > > Do late-model versions of Firefox parse a rendered page and > immediately begin to fetch the data referenced by all URLs on that > page? If so, does it cache them? If so, when, if ever, is that cache > purged? > I don't know about that, but I see the reverse. On my Microsoft Surface 2 tablet (I won it in a contest), it doesn't seem to cache any webpages. If I back up, it takes a bit of time. It seems odd, but this is my only real experience with Windows, so maybe it's the norm. It's a nice fast processor, multi-core ARM, and the internet is now fast, but the browser clogs on webpages. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 21:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6vab6Fh22rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12212 |
Am 20.10.2016 um 23:19 schrieb BartC: > On 19/10/2016 23:57, BartC wrote: > >> What's taking up all the space? My own stuff isn't much, I've been >> deleting and moving things I would rather have kept, but it still didn't >> make much of a dent. >> >> Until today I found out that 50 PER CENT of my hard drive was being used >> to store successive 'restore' points for Windows. AFAIK I've never >> needed to use one, but imagine using up HALF my drive without evening >> asking! > > It gets worse. After gaining back 110GB of MY OWN disk space yesterday, > I had a look at another machine normally used by kids. > > That had 450GB total, and 300GB used, but I could only find evidence of > a fraction of that. 'Treesize' only reported 110GB space used in 200 or > 300,000 files. > > It turned out that Firefox had been continuously generating cache files. > I found over 3 MILLION of them, taking nearly 200GB of space! And from > the time stamps, at times they were being created at more than one every > second. And, for some inexplicable reason, not reported by Treesize. Very strange. You should have a look at the Firefox settings. My Firefox reports that it uses 12KB hard disk cache space which is about the same when I check the Firefox cache directory directly. The Mozilla directory itself has about 55.5MB. System opensuse tumbleweed. Should there really be such a big difference in Windows-Firefox? cu Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bashley@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 14:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b7e38f5-6cf1-4d09-ba5e-4c2aef761469@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11972 |
Have you checked Options | Advanced | Network? You can tell it how much cache to store and clear all of it from that page. Access Options from the "hamburger" (three horizontal lines) at the upper left. This stuff used to be a lot more user friendly, and it can only get worse. Good luck. -- Cheers, Bev
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 01:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nueark$psi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12221 |
On 21/10/2016 22:26, bashley@gmail.com wrote: > Have you checked Options | Advanced | Network? > > You can tell it how much cache to store and clear all of it from that page. Access Options from the "hamburger" (three horizontal lines) at the upper left. > > This stuff used to be a lot more user friendly, and it can only get worse. That's something I've never looked into up to now but it's never usually given much problem either. A third machine has no override checked, but currently uses 340MB of cache. Which coincidently is the same as the default cap suggested if I was to override 'the automatic cache management'. That suggests that there is /is/ a cap in place anyway, and the override is to do with overriding that limit. Obviously that didn't work with the machine where it just grew and grew into millions of files. But why wouldn't such significant areas of a disk be hidden so well that Windows Explorer and even Treesize don't report them? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 23:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nuevbf$e57$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12222 |
On 10/21/2016 05:11 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 21/10/2016 22:26, bashley@gmail.com wrote:
>> Have you checked Options | Advanced | Network?
>>
>> You can tell it how much cache to store and clear all of it from that page. Access Options from the "hamburger" (three horizontal lines) at the upper left.
>>
>> This stuff used to be a lot more user friendly, and it can only get worse.
>
> That's something I've never looked into up to now but it's never usually
> given much problem either.
>
> A third machine has no override checked, but currently uses 340MB of
> cache. Which coincidently is the same as the default cap suggested if I
> was to override 'the automatic cache management'.
>
> That suggests that there is /is/ a cap in place anyway, and the override
> is to do with overriding that limit.
>
> Obviously that didn't work with the machine where it just grew and grew
> into millions of files.
>
> But why wouldn't such significant areas of a disk be hidden so well that
> Windows Explorer and even Treesize don't report them?
I'm never surprised at anything that windows does. It hides things by
default and you have to know what you're looking for in order to look
for it :-(
For instance -- you used to be able to restart windows with the
previously-open windows open. I hunted for that setting without
success. It's possible to open chosen apps/windows every time it boots,
but that's not what's wanted and I haven't figured out the right
word-pattern to search for yet :-(
Another nastiness -- One installation I had made a log file of
EVERYTHING I did/saw/etc. It rapidly took over the entire drive. I
kept deleting apps etc. but it was never happy. Ultimately I sorted the
entire drive by filesize, found the offending culprit and googled for
how to stop the thing that generated it from doing it again.
Why would anybody (except HD manufacturers, of course) want such a thing?
--
Cheers, Bev
"My parents just came back from a planet where the dominant lifeform
had no bilateral symmetry, and all I got was this stupid F-Shirt."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 11:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nufgcr$8mc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12225 |
On 22/10/2016 07:01, The Real Bev wrote: > On 10/21/2016 05:11 PM, BartC wrote: >> Obviously that didn't work with the machine where it just grew and grew >> into millions of files. >> >> But why wouldn't such significant areas of a disk be hidden so well that >> Windows Explorer and even Treesize don't report them? > > I'm never surprised at anything that windows does. It hides things by > default and you have to know what you're looking for in order to look > for it :-( > > For instance -- you used to be able to restart windows with the > previously-open windows open. I've never heard of that. Usually the reason to restart Windows is to clear any problems and start from a known working state. Perhaps you're thinking of resuming Windows from 'hibernation' or 'sleep' modes? [If so, look at Start -> Control Panel (-> View by: Small icons) -> Power Options -> Choose what the power buttons do] > Another nastiness -- One installation I had made a log file of > EVERYTHING I did/saw/etc. It rapidly took over the entire drive. I > kept deleting apps etc. but it was never happy. Ultimately I sorted the > entire drive by filesize, found the offending culprit and googled for > how to stop the thing that generated it from doing it again. > > Why would anybody (except HD manufacturers, of course) want such a thing? I suspect some apps just view storage as some very cheap, endless resource. They don't understand that cluttering up a drive with literally millions of files can slow things down as well as causing problems when it starts to run out of space. I can remember four instances of behaviours that have seriously impinged on normal use of my machine. Only three are MS mainly because I don't install many apps: * Windows taking over the CPU for half an hour every morning making it impractical to do any normal work (something to do with updates; who knows exactly what it was calculating that took that amountof CPU time!) * Just adding more and more system restore points, which, even limited to 50% of the drive, meant I nearly ran out of space to run some programs, and had to spend hours finding things to delete - /my/ things. * Firefox creating millions of cache files. I hadn't run out of space yet, but FF was sometimes taking minutes just to start up, while other apps were taking minutes to shut down. I can't prove the connection but it seems likely. * Another MS problem was when it would suddenly announce the system was shutting down. I can't remember if this was to do with updates or not. But it would just close down everything (even if you were in the middle of some on-line transaction, creating some document, or some other critical thing) without asking you if you wanted to proceed. You have to wonder what is behind the thinking of the people programming these behaviours. Obviously their software is more important and takes priority over any useful work the mere user (the owner of the machine) might want to do! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 20:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nuhb9d$so8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12226 |
On 10/22/2016 03:52 AM, BartC wrote:
> On 22/10/2016 07:01, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 10/21/2016 05:11 PM, BartC wrote:
>
>>> Obviously that didn't work with the machine where it just grew and grew
>>> into millions of files.
>>>
>>> But why wouldn't such significant areas of a disk be hidden so well that
>>> Windows Explorer and even Treesize don't report them?
>>
>> I'm never surprised at anything that windows does. It hides things by
>> default and you have to know what you're looking for in order to look
>> for it :-(
>>
>> For instance -- you used to be able to restart windows with the
>> previously-open windows open.
>
> I've never heard of that. Usually the reason to restart Windows is to
> clear any problems and start from a known working state.
>
> Perhaps you're thinking of resuming Windows from 'hibernation' or
> 'sleep' modes?
No. I shut my machine(s) down every night, but I might wish to continue
working on the same document the next morning without having to call up
libreoffice and then the document. Maybe that was as far back as
windows 95. Or maybe even 3.0 :-(
> [If so, look at Start -> Control Panel (-> View by: Small icons) ->
> Power Options -> Choose what the power buttons do]
>
>> Another nastiness -- One installation I had made a log file of
>> EVERYTHING I did/saw/etc. It rapidly took over the entire drive. I
>> kept deleting apps etc. but it was never happy. Ultimately I sorted the
>> entire drive by filesize, found the offending culprit and googled for
>> how to stop the thing that generated it from doing it again.
>>
>> Why would anybody (except HD manufacturers, of course) want such a thing?
>
> I suspect some apps just view storage as some very cheap, endless
> resource. They don't understand that cluttering up a drive with
> literally millions of files can slow things down as well as causing
> problems when it starts to run out of space.
The granularity is extravagant now -- especially if you just have a lot
of tiny text files. Speed blablabla but it still seems extraordinarily
wasteful.
> I can remember four instances of behaviours that have seriously impinged
> on normal use of my machine. Only three are MS mainly because I don't
> install many apps:
>
> * Windows taking over the CPU for half an hour every morning making it
> impractical to do any normal work (something to do with updates; who
> knows exactly what it was calculating that took that amountof CPU time!)
>
> * Just adding more and more system restore points, which, even limited
> to 50% of the drive, meant I nearly ran out of space to run some
> programs, and had to spend hours finding things to delete - /my/ things.
I'm not sure I'm saving any unless it happens automatically. Once I
switched to linux I regarded windows as a "sometime thing" -- I save my
tax data files in several places, including a flash drive, and the rest
is stuff that can be recreated in the event of a total HD crash.
Nuisance rather than tragedy.
With linux, I just make an exact copy of my working partition to one of
many separate partitions or internal or external HDs. The internal
partitions can all be made bootable.
> * Firefox creating millions of cache files. I hadn't run out of space
> yet, but FF was sometimes taking minutes just to start up, while other
> apps were taking minutes to shut down. I can't prove the connection but
> it seems likely.
>
> * Another MS problem was when it would suddenly announce the system was
> shutting down. I can't remember if this was to do with updates or not.
> But it would just close down everything (even if you were in the middle
> of some on-line transaction, creating some document, or some other
> critical thing) without asking you if you wanted to proceed.
>
> You have to wonder what is behind the thinking of the people programming
> these behaviours. Obviously their software is more important and takes
> priority over any useful work the mere user (the owner of the machine)
> might want to do!
Do not attribute to malice... The staff at one company I worked for
used the phrase "SOS" when under a serious shipping deadline. It stood
for Ship Out Shit. Upper management was not amused.
--
Cheers, Bev
"I've seen a look in dogs' eyes, a quickly vanishing look
of amazed contempt, and I am convinced that basically dogs
think humans are nuts." -- John Steinbeck
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web