In win11, but maybe win10 too, since I didn't have the same setup, I
find that files I've sent to the Recycle Bin, are actually sent to a USB
hard drive, G:? There is only one Recycle Bin icon and its window
doesn't say where things are kept.
On 2025-06-28 21:54, micky wrote:
In win11, but maybe win10 too, since I didn't have the same setup, I
find that files I've sent to the Recycle Bin, are actually sent to a USB
hard drive, G:? There is only one Recycle Bin icon and its window
doesn't say where things are kept.
Are all the recycled files there?
I mean, there could be one folder on each disk, although there is a
single icon for all of them.
The advantage of one folder on each disk is that moving stuff there is
very fast, only the directory entry is rewritten, the file blocks do not >move.
But I am not sure if Windows is using this strategy.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sat, 28 Jun 2025 22:18:45 +0200, "Carlos
E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-06-28 21:54, micky wrote:
In win11, but maybe win10 too, since I didn't have the same setup, I
find that files I've sent to the Recycle Bin, are actually sent to a USB >>> hard drive, G:? There is only one Recycle Bin icon and its window
doesn't say where things are kept.
Are all the recycled files there?
I mean, there could be one folder on each disk, although there is a
single icon for all of them.
I think the list of G: was a phantom list, because I deleted everything
from the Receylcle Bin when the power was turned off to G: and when I
turned the power on again, there was nothing in either Recycle file
The advantage of one folder on each disk is that moving stuff there is
very fast, only the directory entry is rewritten, the file blocks do not
move.
Come to t hink of it, the files on the list were never on G: in the
first place. They were on C:. Why they were listed in $RECYCLE.BIN on
the G: drive may be a mystery!
But I am not sure if Windows is using this strategy.
You know the design has to be based on "move' and not "copy".
Imagine if you were deleting a 100GB file. You would not want
the file moved from volume to volume (copy). The fake-delete has to be
faster than that, so a "move origname newname" is the easiest way to move it out of the way.
By putting all the files into a "single big bucket", what is the
danger ? File Name collision. When the file is moved, the name gets
changed. and it must be changed in a way, where two files tossed
in the trash, don't overwrite one another (on the move attempt).
On 2025-06-29 06:12, Paul wrote:
You know the design has to be based on "move' and not "copy".
Imagine if you were deleting a 100GB file. You would not want
the file moved from volume to volume (copy). The fake-delete has to be
faster than that, so a "move origname newname" is the easiest way to move it >> out of the way.
By putting all the files into a "single big bucket", what is the
danger ? File Name collision. When the file is moved, the name gets
changed. and it must be changed in a way, where two files tossed
in the trash, don't overwrite one another (on the move attempt).
If a big file is deleted on D:, moving to C: (copy and delete) could trigger a "no enough space" situation.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 508 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 217:38:45 |
Calls: | 9,974 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 13,831 |
Messages: | 6,358,556 |