Scary hard disk space problem--running out of space

So long as you use the *approved/official*method of disabling system
restore - via the option in System Properties/Performance/Troubleshooting,
then there should be no unforeseen consequences - it's when you start doing
silly things like disabling the *Statemgr entry in MSCONFIG that you also
disable System File Protection - which is one of ME's major benefits.

I would really recommend that you look for 64MB of RAM - assuming your
motherboard is capable of using it (and it's NOT difficult to get hold
of!! - look in eBay for two minutes, and you'll be swamped....and some shops
still have new stock)

Yes ME will work in 32MB RAM - but you will be using a VERY large Page
file - which occupies disk space of which you are short!!! - it won't take
much of a jpg file to blow you out of the water!.


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"puzzled" wrote in message
...
Dear Mike and Noel,

Firstly, Noel's question as to why SR was still working down at a free
space
of 105 megabytes: well, as it happens, yesterday while I was in panic
mode,
posting away, and looking over the _Restore folder, the newsgroup, and the
Help files, somehow or other, without me actually doing anything I recall,
the free space jumped to 213 megabytes, and Windows ME stopped acting like
a
ruptured turtle, and was back to being an ordinary turtle. Maybe the free
fall in my displayed free space was just some weird quirk relating to the
fact that the computer was closing in on the 200 megabyte minimum for
System
Restore?

It is by the way absolutely true, if this is relevant, that I never let
the
machine idle, and turn it off when I am not using it, to save electricity.
Is
this a bad practice with ME?

The reason I went to Windows ME was very simple: the guy who did the
upgrade
said it was the best configuration for my system, and I took his word for
it.
Now I am stuck with it, unless I want to wipe the hard disc again and
start
from scratch again, a very painful process I would greatly like to avoid
if
at all possible. He also by the way mentioned that he had planned to swap
in
a 64 meg RAM chip he thought he had lying around, but it turned out he
didn't
have one after all and he says they are extremely hard to get hold of
these
days, at least ones that could be stuck into my 200MMX computer. He thinks
the only problem with the 32 meg RAM is that it'll make Windows ME run
slow.
Is he right on both or either counts?

(Count 1: 32 meg of RAM will work OK for Windows ME, albeit slowly
sometimes)

(Count 2: getting a 64 or better RAM chip to put in for my antique would
be
tough)

Lastly, the *solution* I adopted, which seems to have worked nicely thus
far, was to follow somebody's advice from another thread and simply
disable
System Restore. I did this, and now my free disc space is above 400 meg
again. I suspect I don't need System Restore, for the simple reason that,
with only 400 megs to play around with, I probably won't want to to ever
put
in anything really fancy and therefore dangerous, and using half my
available
space, at least 200 megabytes, for SR seems riskier to me than the risk I
take by not having it installed.

*Are* there any longterm bad consequences from not having SR enabled?

Thanks for your assistance, and if you can continue answering my numerous
queries, I would appreciate it.

-puzzled-

"Mike M" wrote:

So nothing unusual there at all and not necessarily the cause of the
problem since it would appear to be working as intended. 200MB being the
minimum space that can be allocated to the store. However given that only
72MB of that is in the Archive folder it might appear that cabbing is not
working and that it is the _RETORE\TEMP folder that is growing and thus
FIFO isn't kicking in since that primarily works on the Archive folder.
The reason could be as simple as not letting the machine idle for any
length of time and switching it off when the user has finished whatever
they were doing.

Since the user upgraded from Win95 it might help to know their reasons
for
going to Win Me rather than say Win98SE given the limitations of their
system.
--
Mike Maltby



Noel Paton wrote:

He's already stated that, Mike....

It is by the way absolutely true, if this is relevant, that I never
let the machine idle, and turn it off when I am not using it, to save
electricity. Is this a bad practice with ME?

Win Me's state manager only analyses the files in the C_\RESTORE\TEMP
folder when the machine is otherwise idle, it then discards those not
required for use by system restore and archives those it wishes to keep as
"cab" files in the C:\_RESTORE\Archive folder. The state manager also
monitors the size of the _restore folder and deletes older checkpoints (RG
cab files) and their associated archived files (FS cab files) as and when
required. With little idle time the state manager is unable to do its
job.

*Are* there any longterm bad consequences from not having SR enabled?

Yes, If you wish to disable system restore you might as well return to
using Win 95 or perhaps Win 98SE. Given the low amount of RAM in the
system I would recommend that you move to using Win 98.
--
Mike Maltby



puzzled wrote:

Dear Mike and Noel,

Firstly, Noel's question as to why SR was still working down at a
free space of 105 megabytes: well, as it happens, yesterday while I
was in panic mode, posting away, and looking over the _Restore
folder, the newsgroup, and the Help files, somehow or other, without
me actually doing anything I recall, the free space jumped to 213
megabytes, and Windows ME stopped acting like a ruptured turtle, and
was back to being an ordinary turtle. Maybe the free fall in my
displayed free space was just some weird quirk relating to the fact
that the computer was closing in on the 200 megabyte minimum for
System Restore?

It is by the way absolutely true, if this is relevant, that I never
let the machine idle, and turn it off when I am not using it, to save
electricity. Is this a bad practice with ME?

The reason I went to Windows ME was very simple: the guy who did the
upgrade said it was the best configuration for my system, and I took
his word for it. Now I am stuck with it, unless I want to wipe the
hard disc again and start from scratch again, a very painful process
I would greatly like to avoid if at all possible. He also by the way
mentioned that he had planned to swap in a 64 meg RAM chip he thought
he had lying around, but it turned out he didn't have one after all
and he says they are extremely hard to get hold of these days, at
least ones that could be stuck into my 200MMX computer. He thinks the
only problem with the 32 meg RAM is that it'll make Windows ME run
slow. Is he right on both or either counts?

(Count 1: 32 meg of RAM will work OK for Windows ME, albeit slowly
sometimes)

(Count 2: getting a 64 or better RAM chip to put in for my antique
would be tough)

Lastly, the *solution* I adopted, which seems to have worked nicely
thus far, was to follow somebody's advice from another thread and
simply disable System Restore. I did this, and now my free disc space
is above 400 meg again. I suspect I don't need System Restore, for
the simple reason that, with only 400 megs to play around with, I
probably won't want to to ever put in anything really fancy and
therefore dangerous, and using half my available space, at least 200
megabytes, for SR seems riskier to me than the risk I take by not
having it installed.

*Are* there any longterm bad consequences from not having SR enabled?

Thanks for your assistance, and if you can continue answering my
numerous queries, I would appreciate it.

"puzzled" wrote in message
...
He also by the way mentioned that he had planned to swap in
a 64 meg RAM chip he thought he had lying around, but it turned
out he didn't have one after all and he says they are extremely hard
to get hold of these days, at least ones that could be stuck into my
200MMX computer.

Try http://www.4allmemory.com/index.cfm

I've found memory there for ten (and more) year old systems, including, for
example, a 1995 vintage 133MHz Micron.

If necessary drop a message to their support line.

- Bill

"Mike M" wrote:


(me) *Are* there any longterm bad consequences from not having SR enabled?

Yes, If you wish to disable system restore you might as well return to
using Win 95 or perhaps Win 98SE. Given the low amount of RAM in the
system I would recommend that you move to using Win 98.

Can't go back to Windows 95, I'd lose my DSL. I'd rather not go through the
hassle and expense of wiping my hard disk and installing (not reinstalling!)
Win 98 (and reinstalling everything else!) unless I really need to.

What are the bad consequences of staying with Windows ME with system restore
disabled? Could I avoid them if I can manage to swap in a 64 meg RAM chip?

-puzzled-