Both of those will have their contents re-created automatically again, as decided by your operating system's requirements, and the presets included in your Startup sequences. And I can almost hear you asking "Well, if that's so, then why bother?" Because: over time, and with varied surfing, searching, downloading, and so forth, a lot of entries are placed in those two folders which aren't absolutely necessary for an average routine reboot or start-up procedure, and during those operations, the system has to hunt through these folders to find anything that it ought to be including in a reboot or start-up sequence - and if there are hundreds of those little muckets in there, it naturally takes longer, right? So the fewer things it has to check, the less time it takes. It's that simple.
They´re giving the same recommendation in an iMac magazine: clean your trash for more speed. But they´re talking about the bin on the desktop this time, not those temporary folders.
ReplyDeleteOh my god, what a difference: My old ME system (hanging on the cliff now and waiting to get pushed over it, I only want to save some files) had a HD with 20 GB capacity, I used only 5 (!!) in all, so 15 GB free over years!
My Mac has some 160 GB or so, and some 22 GB are presently in use, even more than the total capacity of my old machine. What memory hogs the operating system and the few standard programmes are........
The Mac´s never crashed or hooked so far! In use since July 2009!
I´m thinking of upgrading my present Leopard to the latest Snow Leopard. I´ll go have a look in the pet store.
The new hard-drive that failed after 30 days in my new PC is 640 Gb, and
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine anyone needing that big a hard-drive. I'd much rather they made those a bit smaller, and put their expertise instead into refining the ways the system itself works.
For example, lots of us complain about our computers slowing down to a crawl after we've used them for a while. And lots of us haven't a clue how to clean them up to avoid that. So instead of more storage capacity to hold even more often-useless and seldom-revisited junk on there, give us a system that automatically purges itself of the temporary speed-robbing junk on a routine basis.
They could link that process into a program that included an automatic defragmenting of the hard-drive after the junk was removed, and then we would always have machines that delivered performance similar to their 'like-new' condition, whatever that may have been. And it wouldn't matter if the user didn't know how to do that for himself, or perhaps forgot to, or didn't want to take the time for it.
Thinking about things like that, there's definitely lots of room yet for improvement in this whole process. And if I'm invited to take part in the testing or suggesting for 'Windows 8', I'm certainly going to run these ideas up the flagpole, and see if anyone takes notice. My computer should be just as smart as I am, and not nearly as forgetful.
Update for all you XP users out there yet, and I know you're there - I can hear you breathing...
ReplyDeleteTry this link to Linda's Computer Shop and her tutorial 'Deleting Temp Files 101' -
http://personal-computer-tutor.com/deletingtempfiles.htm
To all us other Windows fans I have say that I've tried using her little formula in the search box on Windows 7, and unfortunately
*.tmp,*.chk,~*.* will not work in
Windows 7. But I understand she's working on something, so please be patient.
Meanwhile, I urge you to read her tutorial anyway, because it's good advice and very helpful. I've used her shortcut [*.tmp,*.chk,~*.*] in
Windows XP Pro for years, and it works like a charm. So if you're among the 70% of users still using XP, by all means read her instructions for it.