Deleting 100's of hidden Shrink files maybe the fix it all.

[tekkieman]

I tried deleting all the shortcuts on my desktop and I see an overall better performance on my machine. All the smarites can go ahead and leave their shortcuts on the desktop, personally I will continue to delete them as I can see an overall better performance on my machine.

Well, depending on your OS, I might argue this one (a little). In most cases, your "desktop" is really nothing more than a shortcut to a physical location. (e.g. c:\Documents and Settings\Username\...\...

I have probably 40-50 apps "installed" to my desktop. D/L to desktop, unzip to desktop, ... If you see any performance increase, it is primarily due to not having to refresh as much on the primary interface.

Not that it matters. I still agree with removing any unused files. Especially multiple small ones. Those use more disk space than the actual file size indicates.

[BobK]

Sometimes satire is just a waste of time.

> I have probably 40-50 apps "installed" to my desktop. D/L to desktop, unzip to desktop, ... If you see any performance increase, it is primarily due to not having to refresh as much on the primary interface.

Unless you have an very small HD (or your big HD is fairly full), deleting apps 'installed' on your desktop would have at least as much chance of improving computer performance as deleting 20-30 (or even 100) meg of files that are only accessed by a single progam- and even then not very often.

If you have enough room on your HD to work with video files at all and deleting a few analysis files created by DVDShrink really increases the speed of your computerl, I suspect it's primarily due to wishing thinking and/or imagination.

And I specifically said "shortcuts", not applications.

> Not that it matters. I still agree with removing any unused files. Especially multiple small ones. Those use more disk space than the actual file size indicates.

There's nothing wrong with removing unused files. I merely contend that removing a small fraction of 1% (150 meg on a even a 40 Gig HD is less than 1/2 of 1%) of rarely used files will not increase the speed of your system. Even if they use double the disk space that the actual file size indicates you're not going to speed anything up unless you have other problems.

[Sifaga]

thanks for the laugh guys

[johns0]

I suspect with XP, file corruption is all but eliminated.

Not likely,i still get a few service calls for people who cant start up winxp cause they shut down their computers without waiting to shut down properly.

[handyguy]

"I find it hard to believe that deleting what is literally a drop in the ocean on a modern hard disc will have any effect on overall system performance. "

Some people might have file index searches on & that could bloat the database.

Changing the role of your computer to 'network server' should also speed things up.

[MOVIEGEEK]

You should set the IE Temporary Internet Files folder to 20MB or you can select to delete all after you close IE.

[Nelson37]

Shrink files - If Shrink uses these files when a DVD is done a second time, then it must be searching to see if a matching file exists. Several hundred files could slow it down somewhat. Otherwise, deleting a few or a few hundred files makes little difference, might affect defrag, etc.

Desktop - this should be kept free of all files except shortcuts. Consider how many times a day the desktop is loaded.

Windows\Temp directory is a MAJOR cause of performance loss, empty this regularly. Also Internet temp files.

Windows file corruption (including XP) - happens for many reasons and for no detectable reason at all. The problem is quite common, and is definitely caused by other problems than invalid shutdowns and failing drives, though these are most common.

[skebenin]

Shrink files - If Shrink uses these files when a DVD is done a second time, then it must be searching to see if a matching file exists. Several hundred files could slow it down somewhat.

Shrink derives the file name of the analysis file from the disk/ISO/files, probably using an algorythm similar to CDDB. It doesn't have to scan through all the analysis files - it simply checks to see if the one and only matching file exists.

[Cornucopia]

Just in case others didn't know, if you have ~>1000 files (of any size, even 0k) within a folder, you will have delays when accessing that folder. This includes file reading & saving of a file within that folder. And this gets worse the more files you have.

If, for some reason, a user were to have say 2000 backups with those analysis log files being saved, performing more backups would take an additional amount because of the need to do read-write-read-write of an analysys logfile that happens to be in that cramped folder. In this way, that could make a difference...but not if you never access the file or folder.

Scott

[jimmalenko]

I have to agree with winifreid and tekkieman. I find it hard to believe that deleting what is literally a drop in the ocean on a modern hard disc will have any effect on overall system performance.

Spot on

There are far more areas where deleting files is going to have a greater influence, not to mention the effect a defrag can have.

@blinky88:
I realise you are just talking from what you found in your own experience, but I and many others here can guarantee you that your experience certainly wasn't "the norm"

[npaulie2000]

Spock, says. Captain, We are totally devoid of dimethicon crystals.
"Captain says, full speed ahead Scottie."
"Blast these bloody Russian mp3 players!!!!

[BJ_M]

dimethicon?

[MOVIEGEEK]

Yea...I thought they were Dilithium crystals.

[blinky88]

I have to agree with everyone who chooses to leave those useless and probably 'never to accessed again files' in their machine, to me, it really is the right way to go, good thinking.

For like minded members who believe it is possibly a good idea to delete unwanted files, are using OS-XP and have a CPU of 1.6 GHz or faster, I'll pass on another tip I believe will help make your life a little easier and improve the overall performance of your machine.

I know this will come as a shock to some members to learn there are many users who have never heard of PREFETCH. Many of my friends who have been using PC's since the DOS days .... didn't. Anyway, the Prefetch Folder is located in the Windows Folder and contains stored files from various Applications and files used by you to provide faster access to those files. However, it is my opinion a simple amendment to the registry will provide an overall faster and more stable machine.

Having said that, if you do decide to follow my lead, you do so at your own risk. I do not want to be held responsible if you do not follow the instructions exactly as given. Whilst in the registry be absolutely certain you do not disturb any other file outside of the directions below, really pay attention to the 'address path' and only change the value of the boot file, DO NOT delete anything in the registry.

Step 1. Goto the Windows Folder then open the Prefetch Folder, hit Control A
(select all) then delete.

Step 2. Goto the start menu, select run and type regedit.

Step 3. Goto "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_CurrentControlSet\Control\Sess ion Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters\EnablePrefetcher ..then..
Change the value of Boot Files to 2"

Step 4. Re-boot and check the Prefetch Folder and you will find the boot files will be the only files in the folder and it will remain that way. I believe this not only gives a faster start-up, it also provides better all round performance and a more stable machine.

If, after making this amendment you do not think your machine is performing better, simply go back to the registry and change the value back to the original number.

I guess, by the reaction to my original post, there will be MANY who believe those Prefetch Files should be left where they are, however, I believe some of these files 'DO IN FACT' become corrupted and are responsible for creating problems many users are simply unable to address. End result, they ultimately re-format their HDD and start the reloading process.

One thing I can say is, every file not needed by the OS on my computer (ie.. all I know about) have been deleted and my machine runs like a dream. I have never had the need to re-format and reload and it's an extremely rare event to experience a crash.

If hidden Shrink files can create so many different opinions, I find it hard to comprehend what the re-action to this suggestion is going to be.

I will sign off by wishing by management of this magnificent site (my fav) and ALL members .... A HAPPY and SAFE CHRISTMAS, take care.

[Pop's]

LOL no Prefetch Folder on this pc, I really dout those files are going to slow anyone's pc down. Set your temporary internet folder to 70mb, turn off any services that are running you dont need and believe me there are a lot of them. If your running XP you can go to this site for SP2 and it explains what they are if your not sure. If your running SP1 theres a link on the left side of that page for it.

SP2 http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

SP1 http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/Archive/servicecfg.htm

[vitualis]

The prefetch files are completely different to the DVD Shrink files. These are accessed and loaded on boot time. The DVD Shrink files are not. They just sit there.

If you have prefetch files of applications that ARE NOT commonly loaded, then they may well slow down your boot process. A clearing out of the prefetch files will simply mean that on the next boot, this will be refreshed, and presumably only regularly accessed apps are prefetched (for the immediate/medium term anyway).

I'm sorry, but there is VERY VERY limited logic behind deleting DVD Shrink cache files for the purposes of "overall system performance". Any changes that you see I would fully believe to be wishful thinking. I'm sorry, but your observation lacks physical plausibility.

Having a lot of cache files MAY slow down DVD Shrink and it MAY/WILL slow down opening the folder with the cache files in it (but why would you want to do that?)

Regards.

[skebenin]

... if you have ~>1000 files (of any size, even 0k) within a folder, you will have delays when accessing that folder.

I disagree, at least there are no slow downs of any significant extent, even in a directory with 20,000 files. Large folders only slow down Windows Explorer (including file-open, or browse, dialog boxes), but that's because Explorer is a bit of a pig, and enumerating thousands of items for display takes time.

Getting a single file handle, and especially reading and writing to a file once you have the handle open, is fast. You can confirm this yourself.

Open a crowded directory in Explorer. Depending on the speed of your PC, a really crowded directory may take several seconds to populate (a directory with 16,000+ files takes about 3 seconds on my old PIII 500). Now open your application, click file-open, and enter the full path and name to a file in that directory. It opens almost instantly - just as fast as a file from a sparsely populated directory.

Getting a single file handle is how Shrink works. It derives an analysis file name from properties of the DVD (or ISO, or VOB files on your HD) and gets a handle to that file. I believe it also holds the analysis file open during processing. I don't believe having thousands of analysis files would affect Shrink's performance to any noticeable extent.

[smearbrick1]

The prefetch files are completely different to the DVD Shrink files. These are accessed and loaded on boot time. The DVD Shrink files are not. They just sit there.

If you have prefetch files of applications that ARE NOT commonly loaded, then they may well slow down your boot process. A clearing out of the prefetch files will simply mean that on the next boot, this will be refreshed, and presumably only regularly accessed apps are prefetched (for the immediate/medium term anyway).

I'm sorry, but there is VERY VERY limited logic behind deleting DVD Shrink cache files for the purposes of "overall system performance". Any changes that you see I would fully believe to be wishful thinking. I'm sorry, but your observation lacks physical plausibility.

Having a lot of cache files MAY slow down DVD Shrink and it MAY/WILL slow down opening the folder with the cache files in it (but why would you want to do that?)

Regards.

I've seen alot to support emptying the prefetch folder. I have no clue what cleaning out the DVDShrink temp files does (nothing?) But emptying your prefetch folder is a good idea. Especially after you've visited a site that dumped some unauthorized activex control on you or some other unauthorized app (Gator anyone?). This, and a thorough search of the registry, are the only ways to insure this stuff doesn't show up on your PC if it had occasion download and wasn't blocked in the first place. Thank God for SP2 as must of this stuff is now blocked.

[vitualis]

@ smearbrick: perhaps I wasn't clear, but didn't my explanation about prefetch support that conclusion??

Pre-fetch does speed up boot time though so there's no point turning it off altogether (or clearing it obsessively).

It reminds me of how people don't understand how Pocket PCs work. Generally, applications aren't closed on the Pocket PC but just, put into the background. There are a whole group of Pocket PC users who obsess about the "memory" usage of unclosed apps and force close applications at every turn with a false belief that their Pocket PCs will work better. Actually, the whole reason that apps are left running in memory is so that when you switch back to using an app, it is already there... hence, the Pocket PC is more responsive and runs FASTER. Clearing the active memory is useful now and then but it does not need to be done obsessive as this will actually reduce performance.

The same is with clearing the prefetch.

Regards.

[winifreid]

I think part of this controversy has to do with living in the past. When I first sarted using computers, it was common to have file corruption because HDs had lots of flaws. I always had to run scandisk when I first formatted a disk to mark out the bad sectors. They all had them. Early versions of windows did not have a great method of write verification, so files often got corrupted. Alos, RAM was at a premium with early computers, so making sure only essential tasks were running was important. Finnally, HD were slow and small so loading apps took forever and disks had to be constantly defragged. Today is a different story. In the last 8 years, I have never found a bad sector on a disk (I am sure they are possible, but it is uncommon) and 98 and above has a very good write verification method. HDs are huge and fast and smart, so it is less important to keep them defragged and free of temp files. I am not saying you should never defrag your HD, just that it doesn't make nearly as big a difference as it did on old computers. Finnally, on prefetch. If you have a bunch of files loading at boot that you never use and you have limited RAM and a slow HD, I am sure it would make since to prevent them form loading. But I bet with most of the monster machines people have on this website, it woul make little difference. So it comes down to how you want to spend your time. Do you want to search around your computer for every little file that may or may not be needed, or do you want to burn?

[Cornucopia]

Note: on my previous post regarding >1000 files, this was on 98 & ME boxes. And it happens with any file access of that directory, not just Explorer. Things have most likely changed (for the better, thankfully) with 2k & XP.

Scott

[adam]

Maybe he had a trojan in one or some of those temp files which were eating up CPU cycles.

[kvlourash]

There are quite a few programs that don't do proper cleanup, I guess.

I have found Eo Video (user directory) and Ulead Moviefactory (conversion directory) leave large intermediate conversion files.

[Capmaster]

I found 144 files, each a few KB in size. I don't see any big advantage to deleting them, and in fact they might save me 30 minutes or more if I ever need to repeat a backup

[winifreid]

Cornucopia, Can you point us to documentation of this fact. I have never seen anything that indicated that there was some 1000 file limit?

[skebenin]

I still disagree. My old 500 MHz PIII with the 16,000+ files in one directory is a win98 PC.

[Sabro]

This is for 98 systems, I suspect with XP, file corruption is all but eliminated.

Wooooooooo I'm dying here!


Anyways, thanks for the heads up on the 'temp' Shrink files. I'd rather allocate the space to other useful things instead of storing files that will prolly never be used again!

Sabro

[Cornucopia]

I still disagree. My old 500 MHz PIII with the 16,000+ files in one directory is a win98 PC.

What are you doing with 16000 files in one directory!!?

There is no documentation, just an observance. It doesn't have to be a hard limit like 1000, but once you get up there and beyond on 98, ME systems, it'll start to slow down.

BTW, I work on at least 8+ 98 sytems, 3 ME systems, 1 NT system, 3 2k systems, 3 XP pro systems, 1 Server 2003 system, as well as 4 MacOS9 and 1 MacOSX system and 1 Linux (and I regularly clean/reformat/repartition), so I'm not just a noob blowing it out my a$$.

Scott

P.S. Just a guess, but my prob. may hearken back to the old DOS FCBS, etc. limits or FAT/FAT32. Obviously, this wouldn't be a problem in non-DOS-based (read NT+) systems.

[Nilfennasion]

I still disagree. My old 500 MHz PIII with the 16,000+ files in one directory is a win98 PC.

And that's a good thing. I tried running both Windoze 2000 and Windoze XP on a 333MHz AMD K6-2, and in both cases, it moved slower than my grandmother. It was only a matter of time before I got myself a Duron (which I eventually upgraded to an Athlon).

[adam]

Come on Nilfennasion what are you living in the prehistoric era or something?

Get rid of the grandmother already.