Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RJL who wrote (2445)	3/20/1999 8:54:00 PM
From: wily	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110648

Richard, I have my swap file on a separate drive, so I don't think that could be it. I did play around opening some bitmaps and checking the resulting content sizes -- no change. I thought of a possible explanation: maybe Windows calculates used space for a DRIVE according to the allocation tables used up (not that I actually know what an allocation table is) while counting actual file size for files and folders? This would possibly explain the fact that there was a bigger divergence between the two numbers on my NT drive (percentage-wise) than on my Win95 drive: FAT 16 is supposed to be less efficient than FAT 32. Anyways, it's good enough for me in case you want to do something else with your lunch break. Have a good weekend, wily