Change Folder Names ---> Decrease Free Space

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J'Pol@15 March 2004 - 00:03
Believe it or not, there is exactly the same amount of RAM in this PC as there was HD space in my first PC. I could in fact have loaded the whole content of my HD, swapfile and all, into active memory.

---

Same here, 1GB of RAM in this machine and a 1GB HD in our old P100.

It had 8MB of RAM, so I've got 125 times as much RAM now... and my processor's at least 25 times faster...


Amazing the things that can happen in less than a decade :blink:

All this for a rum and coke or an irn bru. :ph34r: If this had been for apple there would be some blood flowing by now. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J'Pol@15 March 2004 - 00:03
Personally I would go with my files being organised in the way I like and being easy on the eye, whilst affording me the most life enhancing PC experience.

I would not worry about a couple of partially filled clusters here and there. Maybe, many moons ago we worried about such things, but no longer.

Believe it or not, there is exactly the same amount of RAM in this PC as there was HD space in my first PC. I could in fact have loaded the whole content of my HD, swapfile and all, into active memory.

Now let it rest, enjoy yourself and live long in Possil.

---

As you're probably aware, the actual storage space isn't really the concern (I still have a small amount of disc space free). It's a matter of principle.

My first PC had a 1Gb HDD, at the moment I've got 512MB of ram, so I could half fit my old HDD in ram...:)

Anyway, I think we can all agree on an end to the debate. Basically it's possible (but highly unlikely) that renaming 9 folders with one extra character would lead to a decrease in storage space on the drive.

p.s. I don't live in Possil :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bigboab@15 March 2004 - 00:10
All this for a rum and coke or an irn bru. :ph34r: If this had been for apple there would be some blood flowing by now. :)

---

Or pear cider :x

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 4play@15 March 2004 - 00:09
I might be wrong but it depends on how big the file is and what file system you are using.

if your using fat it should not increase as the file allocation table will just include the extra character in its allotted space. the file remains exactly the same.

if your using ntfs it will depend on the file size as it deals with small files in a different way from large files. of course folders are small so no it will not make a differnce.

I think lamsey is right. especailly about the pool playing.

---

4play, I'm not talking about windows itself, I'm talking about soulseek. Soulseek keeps a text file containing all the folder and filenames you have shared.

http://filesharingtalk.com/sigs/4play1.jpg

:drool: 2 best thing every a naked female surronded by eletronics :drool: where did ya get it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamsey+15 March 2004 - 02:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 15 March 2004 - 02:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@15 March 2004 - 00:03
Believe it or not, there is exactly the same amount of RAM in this PC as there was HD space in my first PC. I could in fact have loaded the whole content of my HD, swapfile and all, into active memory.

---

Same here, 1GB of RAM in this machine and a 1GB HD in our old P100.

It had 8MB of RAM, so I&#39;ve got 125 times as much RAM now... and my processor&#39;s at least 25 times faster...


Amazing the things that can happen in less than a decade :blink: [/b][/quote]
Mine was a P90, but we ran it at 120. We were that mad and revolutionary. That was when I found out that the numbers were meaningless, only the architecture made any difference.

The number only reflected the speed at which the processor could safely be operated. As they got better at making them then the numbers got higher. The processors were exactly the same, just made better.

A lot of P120 (see above) processors were sold as P90, cos that is what people wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 4th gen+15 March 2004 - 02:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 15 March 2004 - 02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-4play@15 March 2004 - 00:09
I might be wrong but it depends on how big the file is and what file system you are using.

if your using fat it should not increase as the file allocation table will just include the extra character in its allotted space. the file remains exactly the same.

if your using ntfs it will depend on the file size as it deals with small files in a different way from large files. of course folders are small so no it will not make a differnce.

I think lamsey is right. especailly about the pool playing.

---

4play, I&#39;m not talking about windows itself, I&#39;m talking about soulseek. Soulseek keeps a text file containing all the folder and filenames you have shared. [/b][/quote]
I cant be ar5ed going into it but what he feck

My shared.cfg file for my soulseek is 139kb. My cluster size is 16k, on that drive. So it need 9 clusters, with 5kb left over on the last cluster.

The 0s are unlikely to change the available space.

If the config file was 144kb just now, that would be different, then a new 16kb cluster would be required.

Feck it. Are the pubs closed yet. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bigboab@15 March 2004 - 02:25
Feck it. Are the pubs closed yet. :lol:

---

:beerchug: