Vista Goblins

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,998
184
0
108
www.rockysbar.com
Yes..... GOBLINS !

We've dealt with Windows Vista Gremlins in http://www.dr1.com/forums/living/67055-new-laptops-vista.html and managed to modify Vista into a friendlier XP-like operating system.
Some of us make our living with our puters and have no choice but to have a good functioning machine to do so.
If the Vista Goblins gobble up so much hard drive space that our puters slow down to a crawl, then we need to overcome and vanquish this problem.

Here we have a perfect example of how Vista gobbles up hard drive space.

When you open "My Computer", then right click on your "C" drive and go to "properties".




And you see 48.8 gigs of used hard drive space, when in fact, you have hardly nothing on your hard drive, as demonstrated in the following pix.
You open the "C" drive by double clicking on it, select all the items shown, then right click on them for "properties", and the property page clearly shows that you are only really using 18.7 gigs.





30 gigs, gobbled up to where?????????????????????

So you go onto Google and research the problem, only to discover that several people are complaining about this problem, and you find nothing but dummy replies, suggesting things like emptying the trash bin, cleaning up your temp files, etc.
So even the computer geeks have no solution to this problem?
What happens with time, as you do start to load your hard drive with pix, video, audio, documents, etc?
Are puters, after all, not designed to store all our data?
Do we not buy puters with giant size hard drives for that very purpose, knowing full well that when a hard drive gets below 50% free space, the whole puter slows down?
We know we never had this problem with XP, at least not in these proportions.
An unaccountable few gigs is one thing when you have a big hard drive, but when it gets into double digit gigs, it's time to address the problem.

So........
Has anyone with Vista noticed this?
Has anyone done as explained above, only to discover a huge disparity between the space that you are really using on your hard drive vs what your puter is saying you are using?
Does anyone want the solution?
If so, I will post it here, with accompanying pix and the detailed procedures.
 

AZB

Platinum
Jan 2, 2002
12,270
488
83
I hate vista. i will try to install xp on my friend's laptop. Finding all the drivers will be a bitch.
AZB
 

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,998
184
0
108
www.rockysbar.com
I hate vista. i will try to install xp on my friend's laptop. Finding all the drivers will be a bitch.
AZB
I wouldn't do that if I were you.
It's beyond just being difficult to find drivers.
The puter I have here that I recently bought with Vista on it, was missing 6 drivers that are IMPOSSIBLE to get with XP.
Clearly, Microsoft wants to force people to stick with Vista, so they are influencing manufacturers to make new hardware that only operates with Vista drivers.
I found out the hard way, and had to go back to Vista.
 
A

apostropheman

Guest
Thanks Rocky,

i'm glad you walked me thru this a few days ago. i never really noticed the wasted space until you pointed it out!
 

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,998
184
0
108
www.rockysbar.com
Here is a screenshot of the mystrery missing 30 gigs that first prompted me to resolve this problem.
In hi-res - (click on image for hi-res view)

In lo-res. (Don't want to stretch out this entire thread posting the hi-res pic)
 

AZB

Platinum
Jan 2, 2002
12,270
488
83
Its possible on some laptops to revert back to XP. You must read the forums first to see what problems other people had on the same laptops and follow their advices and you should be ok. This proceedure is not recommended for folks who are not experts in computers.
I have seen laptops that are rolled back to xp and are working really fast.
AZB
 
A

apostropheman

Guest
AZB, no doubt in my mind that if you can get XP working it'll almost certainly be faster than with Vista.

the question is can you find the drivers. if not you're stuck.

p.s. if you do find the drivers be sure to copy them to CD for the future in case they're harder to find next time around :D
 

CFA123

Silver
May 29, 2004
3,498
381
83
Rocky,
Perhaps not quite as evil or mysterious as you think...

It appears you are only seeing some of the folders on your machine.
Vista & other versions have hidden folders & system files.
By default, a user does not see these critical files (so they can't delete them accidentally). When you highlight all the files in the standard view the size of these hidden & system files is not added into the total.

You can see most (perhaps not all) if you change your folder settings.
1. On the start menu search for Folder Options
2. Click the View tab
3. Click Show hidden files and folders
4. If you want to see system files as well, unclick Hide protected operating system files (Recommended)
5. Click OK

Then you can go back, highlight all the folders/files on c:\ & check the size. For me, I come within 5gb of the total drive size and that difference may have something to do with how Windows reads/reports disk space & file size.

If this makes absolutely no sense, let me know.
I'm not a IT Professional, but I did sleep in Cabarete last night. ;)

ps: i have my pc set to show hidden folders, but not to show system files. your mileage may vary
 

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,998
184
0
108
www.rockysbar.com
Its possible on some laptops to revert back to XP. You must read the forums first to see what problems other people had on the same laptops and follow their advices and you should be ok. This proceedure is not recommended for folks who are not experts in computers.
I have seen laptops that are rolled back to XP and are working really fast.
AZB
Yes, I have seen it too, and you are correct, they go from slow pigs to being blistering fast, but unfortunately, the successful attempts at reverting to XP have been on the very early Vista laptop models, which were XP driver friendly.
Now, they are making machines that have internal hardware with Vista only drivers.
 

CFA123

Silver
May 29, 2004
3,498
381
83
Regarding speed, consider turning off indexing which in Vista is 'on' by default. I found that my harddrive was churning constantly due to this. It only means that when you occasionally search for a file, you have to wait a few seconds instead of having it instantly pop up in a list.

Another thing, on my pc when delivered new, there was a disk defragmentation program installed by the computer vendor (not a windows product) that was set to optimize the drive continuously 'in the background'. Well, in the background still took a lot of resources & I disabled it.


With the changes above, I found my machine with Vista to be super fast & it has remained that way for several months now.
 

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,998
184
0
108
www.rockysbar.com
Regarding speed, consider turning off indexing which in Vista is 'on' by default. I found that my harddrive was churning constantly due to this. It only means that when you occasionally search for a file, you have to wait a few seconds instead of having it instantly pop up in a list.

Another thing, on my pc when delivered new, there was a disk defragmentation program installed by the computer vendor (not a windows product) that was set to optimize the drive continuously 'in the background'. Well, in the background still took a lot of resources & I disabled it.


With the changes above, I found my machine with Vista to be super fast & it has remained that way for several months now.
Oddly enough, my Vista indexing default is "off", not on, but this topic can be addressed in the appropriate thread, http://www.dr1.com/forums/living/67055-new-laptops-vista.html
This one is about losing hard drive space.
 

CFA123

Silver
May 29, 2004
3,498
381
83
Rocky,
I won't send a nasty PM as Rachel did, but please see my post #8 in this thread. ;)

The speed response was to AZB when he mentioned the speed gains in reverting to XP. I was also disappointed until I did the things I mentioned above.
 

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,998
184
0
108
www.rockysbar.com
Rocky,
I won't send a nasty PM, but please see my post #8 in this thread. :paranoid:
Thanks for sparing me the nasty PM.;)
You are correct, that I did not see your post #8.
I wonder how that slipped by me.

To answer that question, I do have my puter set to show hidden folders, but it would not have any effect on taking the totals of all your files after opening the C drive and selecting everything in there.
The hidden file view selection, only affects what you view, not the hard drive space it occupies.
I do have the solution to the missing gigs, and am just waiting for someone to request it.
If nobody cares, then I won't bother.

PS: Pardon me if my other reply sounded rude. It wasn't meant to be.
 
A

apostropheman

Guest
Rocky,

please continue.

i know i benefited from you explaining it to me, as painful as it was since i had just awoken from a siesta and had a head full of cement :D
 

CFA123

Silver
May 29, 2004
3,498
381
83
Thanks for sparing me the nasty PM.;)
You are correct, that I did not see your post #8.
I wonder how that slipped by me.
glad you recognized my intent with that comment

Rocky said:
To answer that question, I do have my puter set to show hidden folders, but it would not have any effect on taking the totals of all your files after opening the C drive and selecting everything in there.
I tested all 3 ways before making my post... 1) not showing any hidden or system files, 2) showing hidden files, & 3) showing hidden & system files. Vista returned different file quantities & disk space used each time. Check again if you have time & let me know what you see.

Rocky said:
The hidden file view selection, only affects what you view, not the hard drive space it occupies.
do you also have system files showing... again, i think that will make a difference when you highlight & check for file size.

Rocky said:
I do have the solution to the missing gigs, and am just waiting for someone to request it.
Gopher it.

Rocky said:
PS: Pardon me if my other reply sounded rude. It wasn't meant to be.
no problema :)
 

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,998
184
0
108
www.rockysbar.com
I tested all 3 ways before making my post... 1) not showing any hidden or system files, 2) showing hidden files, & 3) showing hidden & system files. Vista returned different file quantities & disk space used each time. Check again if you have time & let me know what you see.
I should choose my words a bit better.
There is a minor (negligible) difference, as demonstrated in the pix below.
What I am talking about is missing gigabytes.
Massive amounts of hard drive space.
Apos recovered only 3 or 4 gigs, as opposed to the 30 gigs I had lost, but gigs are still massive amounts of data, and will impede the good functioning of a puter, once it slips down below 50% free space.

Without hidden files and with them showing.

 

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,998
184
0
108
www.rockysbar.com
Rocky,

please continue.

i know i benefited from you explaining it to me, as painful as it was since i had just awoken from a siesta and had a head full of cement :D
It will be ready shortly, as I set up all the screenshots and instructions which would allow any novice to do it with confidence.
 
A

apostropheman

Guest
i believe it was 7-8 gigs. still substantial in a drive with less than 88 gigs after formatting and recovery portion are taken into account :D
What I am talking about is missing gigabytes.
Massive amounts of hard drive space.
Apos recovered only 3 or 4 gigs, as opposed to the 30 gigs I had lost, but gigs are still massive amounts of data, and will impede the good functioning of a puter, once it slips down below 50% free space.
well worth the effort!
 

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,998
184
0
108
www.rockysbar.com
First let me say that the problem is in the system restore section.
For some reason, it can store inordinate amounts of data.
I'm not a true computer geek, so I don't have the reasons, but I do have the solutions.
As the geeks wonder why, I seek solutions.
The K.I.S.S. theory at work.
 

Berzin

Banned
Nov 17, 2004
5,898
549
113
I have friends who are computer techs and they all say Vista is the biggest piece of crap they've encountered in quite a while as far as operating systems are concerned.

On my home computer I run 3 hard drives-one for the OS, one for audio files(Itunes) and another for video files.

I find that keeping things separate gives me more space and more importantly less clutter and better organization capabilities, which is difficult if not impossible to replicate on a laptop.

My friends are steering their customers who have home computers to Windows XP, and combined with their servicepack 3 runs much more efficiently than Vista.

I have an all-in-one card reader for floppys and different size memory cards that has become useless because Vista will not recognize it, along with a whole host of other problems. Even though I've managed to have it behave with much tweaking and I sort of like Vista, it just has too many problems in terms of compatibility.