Size matters

[Lady Fitzgerald]

If the info comes up on mouse hover it can't be far away, why can't they put it in the size column

I suggest you ask Microsoft. How would we know.

That was a completely unnecessary and distinctly unfriendly response. If my posts offend you then avoid them please and keep your vitriolic responses to yourself.

I don't believe he meant it to be offensive. He just tends to get right to the point.

 

[whs]

If the info comes up on mouse hover it can't be far away, why can't they put it in the size column

I suggest you ask Microsoft. How would we know.

That was a completely unnecessary and distinctly unfriendly response. If my posts offend you then avoid them please and keep your vitriolic responses to yourself.

I don't think I am known as an unfriendly person and my comment had no unfriendly intent. If you took it that way I am sorry and I apologize.

You have to understand that a lot of new members think that we are a Microsoft helpforum with MS employees. That is, of course, not so. That;s why your embedded question cannot be answered here but only by the people that decided on that design point. -- Peace.

 

[LMiller7]

Windows will try to provide a value for the folder size on a mouse hover. But it may not be accurate. The file system doesn't maintain a running total of the disk space a folder consumes so the only way it can work is to recursively look at every file in the folder. With a large network drive and a slow network connection that can take a long time, not to mention the network bandwidth consumed for what is essentially a minor feature. So Windows Explorer will spend a short time with space determination and then quit. The problem would be even worse updating the size column.

Raymond Chen dealt with this some time ago in his blog.
The Old New Thing - Site Home - MSDN Blogs
Sorry I don't have a link to the article.

 

[urbanspaceman1]

Thanks LMiller7. Yes, the mechanics and the science behind a lot of my grumblings are well beyond my ken which is why I look to those with knowledge and experience here on this forum. It never even dawned on me that a domestic OS would be constrained by issues concerning networks; thank-you for your explanation: it now makes some sense. I had assumed it was a simple matter such as indexing- or not - as the case may be, and that I had turned something off inadvertently.

 

[LMiller7]

Windows 7 isn't just a domestic OS. It is also used in large corporate networks where network performance and bandwidth are major concerns. It is a concern for many home users as well. There are also large external drives to consider.

 

[MourningStar]

Windows will try to provide a value for the folder size on a mouse hover. But it may not be accurate. The file system doesn't maintain a running total of the disk space a folder consumes so the only way it can work is to recursively look at every file in the folder. With a large network drive and a slow network connection that can take a long time, not to mention the network bandwidth consumed for what is essentially a minor feature. So Windows Explorer will spend a short time with space determination and then quit. The problem would be even worse updating the size column.

Raymond Chen dealt with this some time ago in his blog.
The Old New Thing - Site Home - MSDN Blogs
Sorry I don't have a link to the article.

Hmmm, ... interesting. Why, then, are all these 3rd party explorer apps that provide this (and more) able to bypass all this traffic/overhead and smoothly 'cut to the chase'?

 

[LMiller7]

Third party applications are under the same constraints as Windows Explorer. For local drives the feature usually works well. For situations where it would cause a problem the user can turn it off.

But things are not so simple for Windows Explorer. This utility is used by the lowest common denominator of users, those who know nothing of computers and don't want to learn. Many will be using Windows Explorer in a network environment and experience serious problems. Guess who gets the blame? Of course an option could be provided to turn off the feature, but few would use it, or even be aware of it's existence.

 

[LMiller7]

This is the article I mentioned previously:
Why doesn't Explorer show recursive directory size as an optional column? - The Old New Thing - Site Home - MSDN Blogs
The links are also worthwhile reading.

It is written by Raymond Chen, a developer with Microsoft since at least Windows 95.

 

[MourningStar]

^^^
so, I am thinking a computer would be faster if one disables ALL columns save the file/folder name?

 

[urbanspaceman1]

Thank-you LMiller7: again, an insightful and comprehensible contribution. I really appreciate your attentions.

 

[LMiller7]

so, I am thinking a computer would be faster if one disables ALL columns save the file/folder name?

For all practical purposes, NO. Nothing said in this thread would even imply that. The determination of folder size is complex, just about everything else is trivial in comparison. And this calculation is only done when the display is initially created and when it is updated, which in most cases is never.

 

[4wd]

Having a global folder size function on all the time is not a good idea (as discussed in this topic) and W Explorer simply decides to not offer that possibility at all. Freecommander has it off by default, but can be turned on whenever needed, then click it off after one has seen the needed info. Btw, getting lots of folder sizes listed is (obviously) very fast on my SSD's, and sloooow++ on the HD's.

 

[LMiller7]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread is that the folder size numbers are only an approximation. The total space consumed on an entire drive can be determined exactly and without confusion (at least not much). But things get complicated when you ask for the space consumed by an individual folder, or even a single file. It is not that Windows is buggy but that the question can be answered in many different ways and there is no clear consensus as to which one is correct. Many factors must be considered and the answers are often arbitrary.

Just one example:
Do you use the compressed or uncompressed size of a file? I don't believe that Windows uses compression by default anymore but many people do.
If you want to know the space consumed by a folder in it's present location you want the compressed size. But if you want to know how much space it will consume on a drive that does not support compression then you want the uncompressed size. The difference can be substantial.

And that is only the beginning.

See this article for more information. It is by Raymond Chen, a developer with Microsoft since at least Windows 95.
Computing the size of a directory is more than just adding file sizes - The Old New Thing - Site Home - MSDN Blogs

 

[urbanspaceman1]

Once again you give us the goods with a lucidity that overcomes my inexperience and I greatly appreciate that. Your explanation makes perfect sense and your references cast it in stone. Thank-you LMiller7.