Putting large files and folders in Program Files

[garebo]

I dont share my pc with anyone but I started out "hiding" stuff in folders in program files. Then i started putting more folders and more folders inside of program files.
My question is: Is it ok to treat "program files" the same as any other folder or will it eventually slow my system down or cause any other problems.
My guess is that it wont but there's plenty of people here who know a great deal more than me.
I remember asking the same thing about putting folders on my desktop that have, say, a large amount of mp3's in them. Most people felt that it wouldnt matter where i put them on my hard drive, but some people felt it was not a good idea to use the desktop in this manner and that it was better to have a folder on my c drive that was by itself.
This may all sound silly but i think its a question worth asking, i dont mind showing my ignorance. My system does seem to work fine so i think all is well but i would like to know for sure if i can.
thanks



Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[captaincrunch00]

I definitely wouldn't put them on your desktop, if you have to reinstall over this copy of windows that would delete the folder on the desktop... plus it'd be huge and take some time to load up.

I wouldn't hesitate to put things in pretty much any other folder on the computer, program files is fine if you ask me. If you put shortcuts to those folders on your desktop it will be fine.

 

[garebo]

thanks for the reply.
Not arguing the point, just wondering what you mean by
" plus it'd be huge and take some time to load up".

If you mean that if i had to re-install windows over itself, then i see your point about it taking longer, is that what you mean? I know i would lose my own files, but like i said, i always keep backup.

I should have mentioned that i do have a pretty good backup plan. I back up all important files on a regular basis and even copy the most important to dvd.

Not only that, I seem to have developed a system of taking care of my system and my win xp installs last for years. Between using a good a\virus\spyware\trojan\worm stoppers, editing registry manually for uninstalls, and using goback, and not using scandisk or norton utils, my windows never has any problems so i never have to reinstall over top of windows. I know its an option and im sure to have to use it at some time. I am sure im partly just lucky as im not the most experienced, i even go against the grain when i dont ever use scandisk, so i know that sooner or later i will have to re-install windows over top of itself.
So from the perspective of what you have said, so far i think i am ok with the way i am doing things.

But i have invited criticism so i will take into account all that is said!!

thanks




Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[captaincrunch00]

What I meant by the 'take time to load up' comment just means that if you have a 4GB folder of music or pictures sitting on your desktop, the computer has to load that folder and show it to you every startup.

If you had a shortcut to that folder on your desktop while the entire folder was in the C:\Music folder, your computer would have to load up a 1KB shortcut instead of 4GB.

It's faster to load something completely miniscule rather than something huge.

 

[garebo]

So there IS a difference then.


Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[Diancecht]

So that means all files contained in a folder sitting in the desktop are loaded into memory on startup?

Cheers,
Dian

 

[captaincrunch00]

No, the files are not loaded into memory, they're sitting there on the hard drive, but that folder has to be indexed, shown and all that good stuff which is going to take a little longer to load up. Of course with how fast computers are nowadays, I spose it doesnt matter.

Still not a good idea to put stuff on the desktop, if you have to reinstall windows it'll wipe all of that stuff.

 

[Diancecht]

Ok, let's change the question:

so folders in the desktop are indexed on startup?

Cheers,
Dian

 

[garebo]

Keep it going,lets get to the bottom of this, lol.


Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[Diancecht]

From my point of view, Windows treats desktop folders as anyone else, except the fact that they're shown to the user, of course.

I agree the point of reinstalling, but I'm not sure it means a decreasing of performance at startup. Anyway, if someone gives me a reason for that, I'll happily move my desktop folders to another place.

Cheers,
Dian

 

[garebo]

Anyone else?


Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[captaincrunch00]

I give up. Maybe I'm horribly wrong, I dont have any windows XP code or anything I can show you to prove this, but I always noticed a longer boot time when I have a huge folder on my desktop.

Do it if you want, but if the folders are on your desktop you're going to lose them anyway on a reinstall, then I dont see why you would do it in the first place.

 

[guitarzan]

We advise our clients against using the desktop to store files for a few reasons.

The most important reason is that we encourage our users to place data in a data folder that we create (usually on a network drive, or on another partition if it is a standalone machine) so it can be backed up easily. My users generally do not understand where these files are stored, and would never back them up otherwise.

Also, if I have to reload someone's machine, I prefer to do it from scratch (reformat and reload), which means I have to save the user's profile information... a NIGHTMARE if they have lots of files stored on their desktop (also a pain if My Documents is filled... which is why I repath MyDocuments to their Data folder)

As for performance, my understanding is (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that files on your desktop are one of the settings saved by the System Restore feature of Windows XP and Me. That is where the performance hit comes in. But I am not 100% sure on that.

 

[rvnguy]

All,

I contend that "Time to load" increases when there is a multi nested folder on the desktop containing large numbers of files. In my case I moved my mail files to a folder on the desktop; 7,127 files in several folders. This increased load time by about 16 seconds. It appears to be #of files vs size of files.

Prove it to yourself, re-boot and time it. Move or copy a large # of files to a folder on the desktop, do a re-boot, and re-boot again and time it.

Original Question: Hiding files in folders in the "ProgramFiles" directory. This will provide no difference between these files residing there or in another directory on the same HD/partition.

garebo must you always ask such intriguing questions??

rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all

 

[Diancecht]

Ok, now I'm the one giving up, you all cannot be wrong. I'll test copying some zillions of archives to the desktop and see what happens.

I'll let you know.

Cheers,
Dian

 

[garebo]

rvnguy, its the nature of the beast.
I was the kid who tore everything apart when i was 8 yrs old and tried to put it back together, lol.
I never forgot the look on my dads face when i had my bike torn all apart in the garage. I just had to find out how it worked. Whipped my butt he did, but it didnt stop me, its the nature of the beast, lol.

I just want to know if this bad habit of mine is causing me any problems or not.
I guess, in the long run, it would be better to move them, from what i have read it affects bootup time. But i dont see how, unless win xp treats the desktop differently. I dont see how moving these files to my documents will help any, unless windows treats the desktop differently and has to catalogue everything on the desktop on bootup.




Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[garebo]

I am gonna boot up as is, then move all my stuff off the desktop and boot again, see how long it takes. But to be honest about bootup you have to wait til you get a full pointer and all items on the system tray are operating, so that depends on what each of us has on the system tray. For instance, zone alarm takes a long time and there are others too that take a while to be up and running.
Still, i should be able to get a fairly accurate picture. Even if i can get boot time improved its a good reason to move these files.


Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[garebo]

Ok, here it is:
Before moving files & folders from desktop.

To boot to welcome screen: 1m 20 sec
to boot to desktop 1m 38 sec
full boot with all systray items showing: 2 to 2m 20 secs
hard to gauge

after moving all files & folders from desktop to another area and leaving a shortcut only.

To boot to welcome screen: 1m 30 sec
to boot to desktop 1m 48 sec
full boot with all systray items showing: 2m 20 sec to
2m 40 secs

I have system restore disabled and goback enabled, so that likely takes into account anywhere from 5 to 15 or 20 seconds, its only a guess. But its there all the time so the totals arent really affected.

Now there must be some reason its taking longer that isnt being taken into account. I would think the answer is that it doesnt take any longer to boot with files on the desktop than no files.

However, i can see neo much better, lol. I have that pic of neo in the middle with a white background and a few more of neo that are faded and on either side of the main pic.

Anyone else have a ton of files on their desktop,lol?






Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[captaincrunch00]

Your computer takes 2 and a half minutes to boot up?
I'm speechless. Mine takes just about 40 seconds to be fully usable from a cold boot.

You just proved it yourself on the startup times, it adds 10 seconds or so to your bootup. If you want to say that the delay could have been some other thing like GoBack, then fine, say it's that, just dont ask anymore questions if you are going to ignore your data.

If you really want to prove it to yourself: Boot up 5 times and take an average time, then load the desktop and boot 5 more times to get an average.

 

[garebo]

No need to be rude.
Im reporting what time it takes, period.
And i havent ignored anything. I asked for advice and info and its my choice what i decide to do with it.

As for doing this 5 times, i dont see a need, the result would be what it is. Its always been a long bootup. I dont care. Once my xp pro is up and running its fast and its been faithful for years, so i dont care about how long it takes to boot up.

I imagine goback and other progs i have installed has a lot to do with my boot times. But this thread is not about boot times anyway.

Its about wether the placement of files in program files or on the desktop has any effect. But as we can see, it doesnt seem to matter where files are placed as far as bootup. So just what data am i ignoring?

Now as far as stability, well, i have been running the same win xp about 16 hrs a day, full usage about half that per day, for years now with no problems. So i didnt need to ask about stability, i already know that you can place large files on the desktop and have a stable system, been doing it for years, same install.
I just needed to know if it affected boot time or caused any problems or system lag. Doesnt seem to matter is the correct answer, it seems.

Thanks all, for the advice.






Good advice + great people = tek-tips