<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Roger Oberholtzer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roger@opq.se">roger@opq.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 04:08 -0800, Tony Alfrey wrote:<br>
> Roger Oberholtzer wrote:<br>
> > On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 19:31 -0600, vu pham wrote:<br>
> >> <a href="http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistahardware/thread/720108ee-0a9c-4090-b62d-bbd5cb1a7605" target="_blank">http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistahardware/thread/720108ee-0a9c-4090-b62d-bbd5cb1a7605</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Best reply to the topic was:<br>
> ><br>
> > "This is a rare error when the overwriting mechanism of the memory banks<br>
> > lead to an overflow of data because it cannot add on and thus<br>
> > super-stack, increasing the weight significantly. While normal<br>
> > weight/file ratio is approximately 0.02 oz/GB, in rare cases such as<br>
> > these, it can go as high as somewhere around 6 oz/GB.<br>
> ><br>
> > One solution is going to the system32 folder (C:\WINDOWS\system32) and<br>
> > deleting certain unnecessary files, but too much tampering may cause<br>
> > permanent changes to your computer."<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> I think Roger has just hit on a new weight-loss technique.<br>
<br>
</div>I cannot take credit. It was a response in the forum.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Roger Oberholtzer<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Maybe it's not a file issue; but rather, a file system issue? I remember when I first tried Linux, I had to switch from fat to ext2. Once my PC was fat-free, it seemed much lighter/faster.<br>
<br>Andrew<br>