OT - computer help/windows 7
This may not be the appropriate place for this, but I know he mgoblog community is pretty tech savy so I figured I'd give it a shot.
I just reformatted to 64-bit Windows 7 from 32-bit Vista. After installing the new OS, 60GB of my 120GB hard drive is still taken up. I have no idea what is taking up all this space and have searched the ends of the internets to figure it out. I've de-fragmented, uninstalled the applications and did all the other basics. Could all this space be from old back-ups by Vista? I would assume these would have been lost in the re-format.
The program I used to transfer my music and other media was the Windows Easy Transfer program, but that only accounted for about 14GB. Does Windows 7 really take up 45+ GB?
I appreciate all the help in advance!
Windows 7 is only a couple of gigabytes. Did you partition your hard drive unknowingly?
Is there an enormous folder called "Windows.old" in the root of your C drive?
as a matter of fact there is, should I just delete it, or will doing that crash my comp?
that link is for Visa, but +1 for the effort. I figured it out, I guess if I dont post here for a while then I really effed something up....
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/How-do-I-remove-the-Windows-old-folder
if you delete that folder, you cannot revert back to vista (though why would you ever want to??)
also, if there's anything you've saved there will be gone if you delete it (obvs). go through it and see if there's anything you want to save. however, deleting it will not fuck your computer as it is right now.
If you sort through that folder, you'll find things that were on your computer before you upgraded to 7. If you already have them backed up or don't care about them, feel free to delete them and free up all that space.
aaaand its 39GB, I ran that sequoiaview program and it didnt show up as something that obvious.
Problem solved.
I have been waiting to see you post for a while. Finally saw where your avatar came from. The kid liked turtles.
@1:36
Macs are the most overrated things in the world.
I wouldn't go that far, but why do you think so?
price - they have at least a 20% markup on similarly specced pcs
compatibility with popular software - pcs smoke them out of the water.
customizing - pcs let you do it a lot, macs very little
operating system - windows is for people who actually know how to use computers. macos is for soccer moms, grandparents, and douchebags.
now i guess you could buy a mac and install windows on it, but whats the point?
really with a mac, you're paying a ton of money for that glowing white apple on the back.
Or it puts me in a fourth category of old unix guys who want a decent GUI.
The biggest downsides I see to using a Mac are the price and the lack of games. For anything I use occasionally, I either use remote desktop or VMware. The other software I use is available for the Mac (e.g., Office, Photoshop, Lightroom).
On the upside, I've been much, much happier with Mac OS X in terms of usability and stability than I've ever been with Windows. I'm far less likely to run into any of the weird and frustrating problems that I continually run into on my various work laptops (running XP). It also requires less maintenance than Linux. I have to say I think it's been worth the premium .
To me, of course. Your mileage may vary.
Incidentally, Steam has just introduced SteamPlay, which lets you play games with the Mac version of the Steam client. I bought the complete edition of Civ 4 on sale and have been playing that. It's a little slow, but better than running it in a virtual machine.
He was an IBM programmer and quite at home with PCs before you and Windows were born, you whippersnapper! Willy nilly and putt putt!
I use Windows 7 at my office and at home, but my personal notebook is a 13" MacBook Pro - best notebook I have ever owned. Good display, excellent battery life - perfect for travel or whatever. Solid as a rock as far as platform stability is concerned.
The one thing I don't like about MS products for the Mac is MS Office. I really like the interface with the ribbon that came out in Office 2007.
Since I moved to the subject of MS Office, I have been using the Beta version of Office 2010 for Windows and really like the program. Subtle, but nice, changes.
As a person who uses both on a daily basis, I can say Macs suck too.
Sounds like you need Linux. Ubuntu at the low low price of free..........
http://download.cnet.com/WinDirStat/3000-2248_4-10614593.html
Here's a great free program for visually determining which files/folders are filling up your hard drives. I use it at work all the time and highly recommend it.
If WinDirStat did nothing other than the little Pac Man routine (while running through its paces), I'd probably still like it.
100% awesome -- I've used it countless times.
May I ask why you upgraded to a 64-bit Windows OS? Why not stick with a 32-bit version, unless you're going to be doing some crazy stuff.
I'm currently running Win7 32-bit and wish to upgrade to the 64. The reason is that the 32 bit can only support a certain amount of total system RAM, including that on your video card. I have 4GB or ram installed on my laptop, combined with my 512mb video card. Unfortunately Win7 only recognizes 3GB of my RAM. Triple frown :( :( :(
because my computer is capable of running the 64 bit, its the same cost and I plan on upgrading to 4GB of RAM soon. No reason not to quite honestly.
Just picked up a new Sony VAIO with 64-bit windows. It definitely runs like a champ. If you have the RAM there is no reason not to upgrade.
P.S. My buddy who is an Apple whore seems to like my laptop better than his Macbook Pro.
Question for those who are computer savvy. My hard drive is 500 GB, yet when I turned the computer on for the first time my C: only had 437 GB free. This is normal right?
Unfortunately, yes, that is normal. The reason stems from the way Bytes are calculated. Your computer considers 1 KB to be 1024 Bytes (2^10) while the product listings consider it to be 1000 Bytes which is the real definition of kilo. This is a minor difference but when you do it three times, going to kilo then mega then giga, it becomes a larger difference and accounts for the "missing" 63 GB.
for the response. I never would have guessed that was the reason why, but it makes sense in a weird way.
Check for a "winsxs" folder in your c:\windows . This is one of those cryptic windows folders that keeps growing in size and no one quite knows exactly what this is for. I had a windows vista 64-bit install a while ago, and this folder had ballooned to some 15 gigs. A quick google search indicates that this folder is still around on win 7. If that in fact is your problem, there are a few links that tell you how to clean it up. One example -
But, but, try Ubuntu :)
The Winsxs folder, stores multiple copies of dll's in order to let multiple applications run in Windows without any compatibility problem. Winsxs stands for 'Windows Side By Side'
This is the sort of thing that pisses me off no end about windows. I am sure there is absolutely no need for all these dlls to exist. Hell, I probably have 15-20 applications installed, and they most certainly do not need to link in 15 gig worth of libraries to function. Do what linux does - put these libraries in some repository. When installing an application, check for dependencies, prompt the user, and download it. This folder grew alarmingly in the short time that I actively used Vista. If I didn't know any better, I'd have declared Vista a computer virus.
Nice app for visualizing used disk space:
consider the problem solved, I deleted the windows.old file and now I have 80GB of free space on my hard drive, woo hooo!
... how about automatic -10 for posts that start with:
This may not be the appropriate place for this...
oh cmon, the dude realized that we could help (which we did), and asked. it was in line with all the rules - marked OT and clearly titled. he was a bit apologetic which is understandable.
its not like we have important football topics to discuss right now anyways.
how about -10 for being a taint licker
What am I missing? 4gb of RAM, 320 gb Hard drive, Windows 7.....$400 laptop. No dual-core but for the price I think I am overlooking the reason this laptop is $400...
No dedicated video card, it's shared memory. Limited RAM capability, 32 bit OS, Wireless "G", limited connectivity etc... I bought this one for my significant other, it's worked out pretty well for her. It just depends on what you're using it for.