Folder Size Windows 7 64 Bit Download
Channing Chambers
Zipped (compressed) files take up less storage space and can be transferred to other computers more quickly than uncompressed files. In Windows, you work with zipped files and folders in the same way that you work with uncompressed files and folders. Combine several files into a single zipped folder to more easily share a group of files.
Press and hold (or right-click) the file or folder, select (or point to) Send to, and then select Compressed (zipped) folder.
A new zipped folder with the same name is created in the same location. To rename it, press and hold (or right-click) the folder, select Rename, and then type the new name.
If you add encrypted files to a zipped folder, they'll be unencrypted when they're unzipped, which might result in unintentional disclosure of personal or sensitive information. For that reason, we recommend that you avoid zipping encrypted files.
Some types of files, like JPEG images, are already highly compressed. If you zip several JPEG pictures into a folder, the total size of the folder will be about the same as the original collection of pictures.
The operating system automatically reduces the size of the WinSxS folder by using methods similar to the ones described in this topic. Windows also uses internal processes to reduce the size of the WinSxS folder, such as uninstalling and deleting packages with components that have been replaced by other components with newer versions. Previous versions of some components are kept on the system for a period of time, allowing you to rollback if necessary. After a period of time, these older components are automatically removed from the installation.
The /Cleanup-Image parameter of Dism.exe provides advanced users more options to further reduce the size of the WinSxS folder. For more information, see DISM Operating System Package Servicing Command-Line Options.
You can use Disk Cleanup to reduce the number of unnecessary files on your drives, which can help your PC run faster. It can delete temporary files and system files, empty the Recycle Bin, and remove a variety of other items that you might no longer need. The option to cleanup updates helps reduce the size of the component store.
I was using Treesize to manage the space on my drive after having installed the Android devkit, which resulted in my system downloading about half-a-dozen versions of the SDK, along with about six thousand version of Java!! Absolute bloomin' chaos.
Thanks for Treesize. I haven't had to use it for about a decade, but it's good to know it's still around, and works as wonderfully well as it every did.
A life saver!!
Get detailed statistics on file types and file owners. A Top 100 list shows the largest files at a glance. Compare with previous states and see the size increases. Additional bar and pie charts give more insight.
Windows clearly calculates how big the folder is, why doesn't it just list the size in folder column like it does with files? Why should I have to use an external program just to see folder sizes in explorer?
If you drill down in File Explorer to a single backup within your storage volume, for example ClientName\210724-0840, the Properties will tell you approximately how much space would be used to restore all the files in all the folders that were marked for backup at that point in time.
Now with exception of #3 both of those ways seem way too slow for what I need (100s of thousands of files). So the question is which one of these is the fastest / should be fastest, and if there are any other fast(er) ways to get size of folder contents that has 100k+ files (and there are 100s of folders)
Option I: Iterate through directories, using VB script to read in the text output from 'dir' and look for the size at the end + convert it to MB (originally got it from somewhere else that I actually lose the place where I got it from)Option II: Iterate, with findstr pipe and output the result directly (no converstion to MB) - from @MC NDOption III: use the compact command to iterate - from @npocmakaOption IV: from @user1016274 - using robocoby
I found that using robocopy is much faster. One additional advantage is that even very long paths do not cause an error (> 256 characters in path), for instance in deeply nested folders.
And if you prefer to not count data behind junctions that can easily be included with robocopy like this:
If you leave out the /BYTES option you'll get the size value formatted in MB or GB. One would have to print the dimension (k,m,g,t denoting kilo, mega, giga, tera) as well in this case, using another loop variable:
The robocopy command here does not actually copy anything (due to the '/L' list option) but prints a summary line containing the sum of the filesizes which then is parsed. As robocopy still expects valid paths for the source and destination folders, the folder name is used twice.
The folder name may or may not contain spaces and thus eventually needs to be quoted. That is taken care of in the first lines.%%b holds either the dimension letter or a numeric value. This is tested by substitution to avoid the 32bit limit of set /A.
Since you are willing to use VBScript (based on your comment below your question), then you can simply use the FileSystemObject Folder object Size property. It reports the total size of all files within the folder, including files in all sub-folders (recursive).
Here is a simple hybrid script utility that reports the total size of any path you pass in as the first and only argument. The hybrid script makes it very convenient to call, since you don't have to specify CSCRIPT.
Changes:
- the script will terminate if the given path does not exist rather than scanning the current directory- compact /a is used to include hidden and system files as well- the complete output is piped into a find. This is where a locale dependent search string is needed, to filter out the summary line. In German it's "Datenbytes" but this may as well be included in a foldername. Thus, a second negative filter will suppress these. Again, locale dependent (but independence was not called for).
The advantage is that find will discard output lines faster than a shell loop with variable assignments. The cost of calling it is neglegible.
Please note that compact /q will not stop the compression action. It will only shorten the output. Not supplying any arguments in the call to compress will make it list only and not compact files/folders.
I have a folder that is actually 15.5 GB. If I right click and select properties it shows 1.61 GB. When I hover the mouse cursor over the same folder, the pop-up balloon shows properly that it is 15.5 GB. Anyone else seeing something like this? Any fixes? From a quick search seems like a known bug.
So this was an archival task. Taking three old project folders from my file server. So I selected them on my file server mapped drive and right clicked to see how big they were. I got 1.75 GB. I knew that wasn't right. I then cut those folders and pasted to my desktop. That is when I saw that the three folders were much larger as it was deteremining how much it was moving...it flew right past 1.75 GB. Hopefully it is fixed soon. I did submit feedback through the feedback hub
Used PathLengthChecker and discovered a photo named with a 22 word sentence created a path length of 271. The second longest path in this directory was 241. With this photo within the Parent directory, Windows properties reported the parent folder contained 44,743 files & 4813 folders occupying 13.3 GB.
Using the Everything search app, I could see there were 164,633 objects (files & folders). I removed the photo from the directory and repeated the Windows properties query. Windows now reported 151,879 files & 12,753 folders totalling 164,632 (one less than that reported by Everything) and occupying 64.4 GB of drive space.
The same problem still going on 4/18/2019 - properties shows the main folder is 163 GB when I selected all subfolders and check it comes 2.7 TB but it is normally 3.3TB when you want to copy it to another drive. Also, I have the same problem with subfolders. For example, the 1.61TB folder shows only 927 GB only 5 out of 2 big subfolders show correct sizes and that happened after I moved numerous subfolders inside and out to alter 3.3TB data to 929gb folders
It's because File Explorer didn't report problem when the maximum path length was exceeded, and just ignore files and folders that exceeded maximum path length. Their sizes would become 0. If you shortened the names of some file and folder names, the folder size error might be corrected.
Still, I cannot believe Micro$oft doesn't fix this issue after so many years. The path length problem is as old as DOS (it's 254 characters if I remember correctly). Programmers could use a different method to iterate a folder tree and calculate the tree size correctly.
I see. While probably not a big deal, this does mean that the folder size reported in Syncthing will almost always be larger than the actual size on the disk, right? I would guess that having empty folders somewhere in the directory tree is quite common.
Actual size on disk is also a matter of perspective. Physically a file also has some filesystem overhead on the disk (NTFS Master File Table, EXT Inodes, Block Groups etc) - this can be quite a lot, depending on FS structure and file distribution. Many OS will never report all overhead, so how much disk is used by something always depends on your perspective.
I wonder how other synchronisation software handles this. I have been using Syncthing exclusively for 1 year, but I had used several others before. Unfortunately, I had not really paid attention to file/folder size reporting in them then. I have got curious now though .
So, I am trying to learn Windows PowerShell. What I am doing is when I need to make a change to an existing VBScript script, I attempt to use Windows PowerShell to do the same task. I am having a bit of trouble listing files in folders and in subfolders. Can you give me a push in the right direction?
35fe9a5643