|
I thought Google and Microsoft(Outlook) had a falling out and as a result, Google was removing a lot of the integration/sync with Outlook? I have noticed some of this, myself.
Don't know if this has anything to do with your situation.
Edit: Last I read this affected the free email accounts. To keep the integration, you need the purchase a business "gmail" account. I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, they did a couple of years ago. And damn annoying it was too...
It's just a change to the Android App - I don't use a google email account, I have my own domain - it syncs to the mail.myDomain.com address to get email via IMAP so it doesn't remove anythign from the server automatically. Outlook looks at the same account, via POP3 and downloads it so that a copy of everything is on my PC (and archived / backed up) rather than sitting on the server all the time.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I'd be smart and use the Windows Disk Manager to create .VHD files that match the size of a blank DVD-5 as closely as possible, and then use that as a container so I know that if a file/set of files fit in this mounted .VHD, I'd know I'd be able to burn it to disc without running out of space.
I've verified that ImgBurn happily burns a 4,706,009,600 bytes .VHD file I've created. As a bonus, moving around a single ~4.38GB file (say, across my LAN) is a lot quicker than otherwise individually handling the few tens of thousands of files it might contain. And my anti-virus doesn't feel like it's got to scan those thousands of files. I've really gotten used to having a bunch of .VHD files as containers that I can mount/dismount on demand. A bit like .ISO files, except they're also writable right in Explorer.
Here's the problem though. When I mount and then format a VHD file sitting on my hard drive, Windows insists on wasting around 50KB for who-knows what purposes. For one thing, it keeps creating (and recreating after deleting) a $RECYCLE.BIN folder in the root of the mounted VHD, and Explorer shows there's "4.33 free of 4.38GB" (even immediately after a fresh format). Supposedly that's normal behavior for any drive that Windows does NOT consider to be 'removable.'.
I have a few files, larger than 4.33GB, that currently exist on DVDs that I know were created without overburning. Because of this ~50KB waste of space Windows insists on using up, I can't copy these files (which fit on a DVD) back to a VHD that also fits on a DVD. Color me unimpressed.
Based on my Google searches, it seems that a lot of people are also trying to prevent Windows from using up this space, and everybody responding suggest to just hide system files (so they "...won't see the $RECYCLE.BIN folder if it bothers you so much") and that the space is negligible in this day of multi-TB drives, yada-yada-yada...and completely missing the point. And yes, disabling System Restore has been discussed ad nauseam and doesn't help in this situation.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: "4.33 free of 4.38GB"
I see a difference of about 50 MB there.
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
You're just using the VHD to figure out what you can fit on a DVD, and not actually burning the VHD file to disc, right? If so, why not just bump up the size of the VHD by 50MB (the difference between 4.33 and 4.38GB) and hide or ignore the $RECYCLE.BIN folder?
|
|
|
|
|
Every once in a while, yeah, I do want to burn the actual container to disc.
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you post this on the "Hardware and Devices" Forum : [^].
Good reading before further posting: the pinned thread on this Forum, "Posting rules for The Lounge."
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon Bill...I've been on CP since 2001, these sorts of questions get posted all the time here in the lounge. And clearly, this is not a question about any specific piece of hardware or device, but the sort of Windows behavior that people comment about pretty much every day.
If I'm in the wrong here, then this invalidates pretty much everything that's ever been asked here as a question.
|
|
|
|
|
Consider that one reason why I suggest you post this on the forum I mentioned is so that the content of the discussion ... which may, indeed, be valuable in the future to others, is not "lost in the spate" of the Lounge's flow of general hoop-la.dandy72 wrote: If I'm in the wrong here, then this invalidates pretty much everything that's ever been asked here as a question.
I can only hope this statement reflects a temporarily missing-in-action sense of social responsibility.
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Consider that one reason why I suggest you post this on the forum I mentioned is so that the content of the discussion ... which may, indeed, be valuable in the future to others, is not "lost in the spate" of the Lounge's flow of general hoop-la.
Fair enough.
BillWoodruff wrote: I can only hope this statement reflects a temporarily missing-in-action sense of social responsibility.
Asking any question in the lounge is socially irresponsible. Duly noted for future reference.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure about this, but maybe disabling the recycle bin for the volume prevents Windows from recreating the recycle bin folder again and again. You can right-click on the Recycle Bin and choose Properties to check it out.
I think you cannot avoid that 50 MB of "wasted space", I guess it must have something to do with the overhead of the file system (things like MFT, reserved blocks, allocation table, etc.), although around 50 MB seems to be pretty much for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you thought about the fact that file tables and formatting information also takes up space? This is why if you format a 1TB hard drive, you will get less than 900 GB of free space. Now even if you haven't formatted the file yet, I'm confident that the VHD file system must have some way to track the bytes in some sort of table which will require some space.
|
|
|
|
|
Thoughts?
Yeah, it's called apodization. Look it up in your Funk & Wagnalls. And it's a property of the container algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
Bs is somewhat special: it is an extremely heavy composite particle made up of a quark and an antiquark combined into what physicists call muons.
Gee, and here I thought it was made up of a three piece suite, an ego, and an office with a window.
[edit]The strikeout on that 'e' is rather subtle![/edit]
Marc
modified 24-May-15 13:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You on the 'E's again Marc? 
Because you have one too many in there: Three piece suite[^] vs Three pieve siut[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: You on the 'E's again Marc?
The little neurons in my fingers seem to override the bigger neurons in the brain. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: The little neurons in my fingers
I knew there was something special about you, Marc 
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Three piece
It's wrong type of hadrons.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: combined into what physicists call morons.
FTFY
And there's plenty to go around!
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
I know the voices in my head are not real but damn they come up with some good ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
I like your interpretation better. Finally, those experiments are paying off and leading us back into the workings of the mind. Also, it made me laugh out loud!
|
|
|
|
|
So they found particle made of poop?
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't take a college degree to figure that one out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
I've been scanning Google search results for months now using only googles .Com, .BE and Co.UK but for the life of me I cannot seem to get more than about 850k unique domain names.
At first I used about one thousand hand coded search terms and read the first ten pages returned from google that included about a hundred results per page and soon got to about half a million domains but then it slowed down to a stop as it reached 700k.
Six months later I ran a scan to see how many of the 700k sites had gone 404 and also had the DNS entry removed and found that the number of sites up and running were dropping like flies (top of head, about 20% gone)
Now I have a whopping twenty seven thousand search terms pulled from meta data and have been throwing these (Very slowly) at Google and have reached about 850k domains in the database and it has all but come to a stop again and the 850k includes about 20% that went dead pulled six month previously.
I read once that the internet contains about a billion websites not that I believed these numbers and many of the domains I have collected point to foreign sites in places like China or Korea so it is a bit of a mixed bag of results and I also understand that many domain have been parked (lots are linked back to fake sites sharing the same IP and running add-words, google does not mind) but this 850k numbers I am seeing does not look anywhere near the 5-20 million that I was originally expecting.
modified 24-May-15 8:59am.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
