disk space usage mismatch

I'm running a Dell Optiplex GX620 with a 250 GB SATA drive and I've noticed a weird thing about the disk space reporting with Vista Beta 2. I performed a Custom fresh installation of Vista over top of my existing XP setup (which may account for some of the extra data...read on) which as I figured out later does not actually format the drive and perform a "fresh" install. Either way, after all was said and done (and now after 2 weeks of running Vista) my local disk C: properties reports I am using 64 GB of the 232 GB available on the drive. I thought that was a little much so I opened up C: and showed hidden files and folders and highlighted the entire contents of the drive and checked the properties and only 22 GB of data were reported. Is Vista just reporting incorrect data here or is there some kind of extra hidden stuff that is causing a 66% disparity?

Hi, gdavidson.
In addition to Hidden files and folders, did you also check to show System Files? It will ask "are you sure"; if you are the Administrator, say Yes.
Old-timers (like me) prefer to use the Command Prompt window and the Dir command with the /a switch to show All files, even if Hidden, System or other attributes are set. And, when we want to see Everything - and are willing to wait for thousands of files to scroll - we might use the /s switch, too, to see all subdirectories and the files in all of them.
To see your entire Drive C:, type: dir c:\ /s /a and wait a while. At the end, you should see the total number of files in your Drive C: - and the total bytes they use.
It will take almost that long just to see all the operating system files in the \Windows folder tree: dir c:\windows /s/a
A couple of large files that most users don't know about are hiberfil.sys and pagefile.sys. These are the files that Vista uses to hibernate your drive and for your virtual memory; together they use about 3 times your installed RAM, by default. Don't delete them, of course, because Vista needs them. Just know that they are there.
I've never owned a Dell, but my understanding is that their computers have a "hidden" partition holding files that you would need if you had to restore your computer to its like-new condition. I don't know how big that partition might be on your computer.
I'm very confused by your description of just how you went about installing Vista. There are two methods, Upgrade and Clean Install, just like there have been in earlier versions of Windows. Upgrade does not reformat your HD, but deletes your WinXP operating system and installs the Vista OS in its place, migrating your applications and settings in the process. If this is what you did, you probably will also find a very large folder tree named \Windows.old. (Since I've not been successful in getting Vista to Upgrade, I'll let someone else tell you how to get rid of this folder - or if you should.) A Clean Install can be done without reformatting, but a reformat is best. The reformat, of course, wipes out all existing applications and data, along with the WinXP files, and starts fresh; after installing Vista, you must reinstall your apps and restore your backed-up data files. It is not at all clear to me whether you Upgraded or Clean Installed.
RC -- R. C. White, CPA [RC] San Marcos, TX rc@grandecom.net Microsoft Windows MVP (currently running Windows Mail 7 in Vista x64 Build 5456)
"gdavidson79" wrote in message

I'm running a Dell Optiplex GX620 with a 250 GB SATA drive and I've noticed a weird thing about the disk space reporting with Vista Beta 2. I performed a Custom fresh installation of Vista over top of my existing XP setup (which may account for some of the extra data...read on) which as I figured out later does not actually format the drive and perform a "fresh" install. Either way, after all was said and done (and now after 2 weeks of running Vista) my local disk C: properties reports I am using 64 GB of the 232 GB available on the drive. I thought that was a little much so I opened up C: and showed hidden files and folders and highlighted the entire contents of the drive and checked the properties and only 22 GB of data were reported. Is Vista just reporting incorrect data here or is there some kind of extra hidden stuff that is causing a 66% disparity?

Thanks for the response RC. I initially performed an Upgrade install so I knew about the Windows.old folder and included that as well as the system files (pagefile and hibernation file) in my searches. Recently, I did an entire rebuild including using an XP disc to fully format the drive and then installed Vista on a completely clean partition with nothing else after a full backup. I still have the same problems, and I've noticed that every day I come back to work, a few more GB of hard drive space are being used. After the inital install, 218 GB of the 232 total were in use and that seemed normal and pretty much jived with what I got when searching the C drive. But now 4 days post-install, I'm down to 199 GB of the 232 total after installing about 3 GB worth of data and programs. Each day in the morning I would look at the C drive and 2-3 more GB were being reported in use that weren't in use the day before.

I wonder if "Superfetch" and or search indexing is responsible for what you are seeing?
-- Mark
Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!
"gdavidson79" wrote in message

Thanks for the response RC. I initially performed an Upgrade install so I knew about the Windows.old folder and included that as well as the system files (pagefile and hibernation file) in my searches. Recently, I did an entire rebuild including using an XP disc to fully format the drive and then installed Vista on a completely clean partition with nothing else after a full backup. I still have the same problems, and I've noticed that every day I come back to work, a few more GB of hard drive space are being used. After the inital install, 218 GB of the 232 total were in use and that seemed normal and pretty much jived with what I got when searching the C drive. But now 4 days post-install, I'm down to 199 GB of the 232 total after installing about 3 GB worth of data and programs. Each day in the morning I would look at the C drive and 2-3 more GB were being reported in use that weren't in use the day before.

I discovered the problem. It was the System Restore feature that was taking up all the space. Once I disabled it, all of the "missing" disk space was restored.

System Restore was using that much space? It must care deeply for your well-being!
You can manually over-ride the amount of space available to System Restore but for the life of me I can't find it! -- Ted Stevens taught me everything I know about putting internets in tubes...
"gdavidson79" wrote in message

I discovered the problem. It was the System Restore feature that was taking up all the space. Once I disabled it, all of the "missing" disk space was restored.