what the hell is using so much disk space??

Rapp

Rapp

Rapp

Associate
Joined
6 Dec 2008
Posts
61
I recently just finished building my new machine, and it seems to be using far to much disk space for what I have installed or put onto it, can anyone help me out.

I've just installed vista 64-bit onto my 1TB F1 spin point
i7 920
asus p6t

let me know if you need any more info, I just want to know what the hell is taking up 119 GB of space on my drive





http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7889/diskspacemg8.jpg
 
Last edited:
On a drive of that size you're going to lose over 50GB for the recycle bin. You could also be losing 10 to 20GB for the paging and hibernation system files.

Even allowing for the above 119GB does seem a bit heavy. There are plenty of free tools that'll allow you to visualise disk usage, I suggest you download one of them and see if there's anything obvious.
 
Erm, did you have a previous installation on that HD? If so, it'll be because Windows has dumped it into a file called windows.old. Go into C drive and it'll be in there, if not that, delete restore points, if not that, individually go through your files, check how big C drive is, then check how big programme files is, might be something in there? Hope this helps
 
windows install onto an entire 1TB disk? thats just Silly!

surely it would be a better idea to partition it so that you've got a 100GB partition and an 870GB partition, using the 100GB for windows and windows programs, and the 870GB partition for Games and data? thats what i've done for years.
 
Aod said:
windows install onto an entire 1TB disk? thats just Silly!

surely it would be a better idea to partition it so that you've got a 100GB partition and an 870GB partition, using the 100GB for windows and windows programs, and the 870GB partition for Games and data? thats what i've done for years.
Click to expand...

Thats just about the last thing anyone should do. Partitioned disks offer no benefit these days over unpartitioned spaces except for people to feel like there machine is orderly. Partitioned drives behave far more slowly than unpartitioned ones and since this bloke has obviously spent the cash on a good PC why cripple the drive speed?

Partitions are outmoded legacy's of a different age of computing and serve only to simplify mass market system restore operations. They serve no purpose for someone comfortable with windows installation and file managment. People who swear by them have a form of OCD or are just plain misinformed. I would never ever partition a modern drive.

HOWEVER, i agree i would use a fast 250gb drive for windows and have the 1TB as a data drive but thats just me, maybe ive got a type of OCD too!
 
I think for a system with just one hard drive, a dedicated partition to the OS is a sensible idea. The only reason being that it's much easier to reinstall your OS without having to mess around backing up everything on the disk - you can just back up your documents/pictures or whatever.

In the example of a 100GB OS partition you'd likely have an absolute max of 85GB of data to back up instead of over 900GB. It just makes OS reinstalls so much easier, although for performance reasons, a dedicated OS drive is of course the way to go. There is the option of having Windows setup just rename your old folders but maybe I also have some form of OCD ;) I'd rather keep an OS drive as clean as possible when I reinstall.

I'd never have my OS sat on a single 1TB partition though, personally, but I bought a Raptor to avoid doing that sort of thing. I do agree that partitioning for any other purpose is insane though. I see people with 1TB drives partitioning it off into 5 - why? Why not just create 5 folders? It's the same thing effectively, you just have less drive letters :)
 
Last edited:
I couldn't really justify spending a load of money on a raptor or something when there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of performance increase of a standard drive. It would have been nice to do and then have the 1TB for storage, but I decided that a 24" samsung 2443bw was a better choice to have maybe thats an upgrade path I will look into at some point.
 
Rapp said:
I couldn't really justify spending a load of money on a raptor or something when there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of performance increase of a standard drive. It would have been nice to do and then have the 1TB for storage, but I decided that a 24" samsung 2443bw was a better choice to have maybe thats an upgrade path I will look into at some point.
Click to expand...

I was planning on a WD Velociraptor for OS and 1TB Samsung F1 for storage, is the Raptor even any faster that the F1? Is it also true that multiple partitions slow the drive down?
 
Phemo said:
I think for a system with just one hard drive, a dedicated partition to the OS is a sensible idea. The only reason being that it's much easier to reinstall your OS without having to mess around backing up everything on the disk - you can just back up your documents/pictures or whatever.

In the example of a 100GB OS partition you'd likely have an absolute max of 85GB of data to back up instead of over 900GB. It just makes OS reinstalls so much easier, although for performance reasons, a dedicated OS drive is of course the way to go. There is the option of having Windows setup just rename your old folders but maybe I also have some form of OCD ;) I'd rather keep an OS drive as clean as possible when I reinstall.

I'd never have my OS sat on a single 1TB partition though, personally, but I bought a Raptor to avoid doing that sort of thing. I do agree that partitioning for any other purpose is insane though. I see people with 1TB drives partitioning it off into 5 - why? Why not just create 5 folders? It's the same thing effectively, you just have less drive letters :)
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom