Deleting going slow

[Clo]

So @Gaigo
Could you, please, give us some information on
+ your computer equipment (processor, processor speed, RAM)
+ your OS

I use Windows XP, on a Pentium III 1GHz, 512 MB of RAM.

Hi Gaigo!
¤ Thank you for the info.
In that case, the mystery deepens! Its' a so good machine still for office usage...
Please, give just some missing details:
- Is your XP installed in a NTFS partition?
* It's well-known that XP works pretty odd sometimes with FAT 32...
- What is the free space on the hard-disk (%) ?
* People thinks that XP / NTFS doesn't need a HD defrag... It's false, this function exists still, and it's still usefull when you ran XP intensively for a very long time...
You could attempt to run it (at the job-end time, lunch-time or so; close all APPs; that might take a long while whether you have a big HD!)
Glad to hear from you,
Kind regards,
Claude
Clo

[Gaigo]

I'm using NTFS, and the capacity is 20GB with 7 GB free.
The deframenter says the I don't need to defragment my disk now. I will do so anyway during the weekend, as well as analyzing the disk for errors.
I just found out that deleting on a network drive works allright!! So maybe my disk is fucked up.

[Clo]

I'm using NTFS, and the capacity is 20GB with 7 GB free.
The deframenter says the I don't need to defragment my disk now. I will do so anyway during the weekend, as well as analyzing the disk for errors.
I just found out that deleting on a network drive works allright!! So maybe my disk is fucked up.

Hi again!
¤ Don't care the stupid MS' message about defrag! It told this already always with W95, then you got HDs having a huge pagaille, and daily blue screens!
¤ Please, run "Scandisk" from Windows with the option "Repair errors automatically" or so (still my French Windows!).
¤ Since you did already, try "Full analysis - Detailed examination - Check the HD-surface state" or so...
* Hence, you'll know whether the HD has really numerous damaged sectors.
* If yes, they could be repaired (not sure...)
The most likely cause of the TC bad behaviour could be that it's installed -even partially- in such bad sectors...
Well, the problem is at bay!
To be continued,
Kind regards,
Clo

[Hacker]

Clo,

I'm astonished that a lot of "Keyboard-Knights" who post intensively here don't use the F-Prot Dos!

Why do you think we don't?

Roman

[Clo]

Clo,

I'm astonished that a lot of "Keyboard-Knights" who post intensively here don't use the F-Prot Dos!

Why do you think we don't?
Roman

Hi Roman!
¤ I didn't see F-Prot quoted here...
* Glad if you use, it's a good AV for cheap...
I hope that you appreciate my humour (I always place markers {tags})
Kind regards,
Clo

[Hacker]

I didn't see F-Prot quoted here...

Well, no one asked about it...

I hope that you appreciate my humour (I always place markers {tags})

I do, just let me hint you that some people find a big smiley/post ratio bad.

Roman

[Clo]

2Hacker
Hi Roman!

I do, just let me hint you that some people find a big smiley/post ratio bad.

• Not wrong, but...
¤ The smilies collection is a bit too narrow... Hence, I'ld prefer one more appropriate than two less significant!
¤ Besides, I often use to write offline, since I patched my HTML editor to get a BB-code profile. So, a smiley = just a clic on a button, it's so easy...
• I did this because the online edit-fields rather work pretty bad @ home.
.... One at the end? It's really too sad!
Kind regards,
Claude
Clo

[Hacker]

Well, I just wanted to say that in another forum part another user was once told from another user that he is using too many smileys in the posts and something in the kind that so much graphical-color-shiny smileys just spoil the post. So if you want to use smilleys and satisfy pretty much all user's needs, use text smileys.
Just a thought.

Roman

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 14-01-2004 15:48:49 +0000 Hacker wrote:

H> Well, I just wanted to say that in another forum part
H> another user was once told from another user that he is
H> using too many smileys in the posts and something in the
H> kind that so much graphical-color-shiny smileys just spoil
H> the post.

Are you talking about this? %) Well, what can I say, I'm agree with Jack.
But actually I always follow this practis: if you don't like how one's post looks, just don't read it. And actually this is why I do not read most of Clo posts :).[/face]

[SanskritFritz]

[face=courier]
Are you talking about this? %) Well, what can I say, I'm agree with Jack.
But actually I always follow this practis: if you don't like how one's post looks, just don't read it. And actually this is why I do not read most of Clo posts .[/face]

Well, what can I say, your choice of font is actually worse At least you could use the true type version of Courier New... the bitmap Courier is one of the worst fonts to read... but still I want to read your posts, because you provide lots of good information. Same with Clo.
I know this thread will burn with flames now, but I just had to make that comment.

[Hacker]

Black Dog,

Are you talking about this?

Now that you mention it anyways, yes, I am.

Roman

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 15-01-2004 17:48:11 +0000 SanskritFritz wrote:

S> Well, what can I say, your choice of font is actually worse

Yep, this is exactly what I'm talking about - don't read it if you don't like it, you have very simple choice.

S> At least you could use the true type version of Courier
S> New...

Forget about it.

S> but still I want to read your posts

Well, so what's the problem, actually? %).[/face]

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 15-01-2004 18:22:03 +0000 Hacker wrote:

H> Now that you mention it anyways, yes, I am.

Hmm, Jedi now I'm really curious why didn't you gave the link to it in your post then? :)[/face]

[Hacker]

Hmm, Jedi now I'm really curious why didn't you gave the link to it in your post then?

Because finger pointing is impolite.

Roman

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 16-01-2004 14:00:14 +0000 Hacker wrote:

H> Because finger pointing is impolite.

Well, Jedi, I can't see anything from finger pointing here, actually.[/face]