Author Topic: O&O DiskStat 2 Pro (Easter promo) (Read 24,238 times)

lanux128 · « **on:** April 04, 2010, 05:27 AM »

just saw this promo for O&O DiskStat 2 Pro in the mail, not sure when it ends.

Quote

O&O DiskStat is a high-power tool for analyzing the used disk space on your storage volumes. With an easy-to-use interface based on the design of the Windows Explorer, you can take a closer look at the file and folder structure of your internal and external drives. Through intuitive and beautiful graphical representations you will find out which files, file types and folders are taking up the most space.

Registration for your FREE license of O&O DiskStat 2 Professional Edition
Please simply fill out the registration form and send it to O&O Software. As soon as we receive it we will send your free license code for O&O DiskStat 2 Professional Edition direct to your e-mail address. Please click on "Submit Form" to get your free license.

• http://www.oo-software.com/home/en/special/freeoodiskstat2/index.html?id=h0298e

Darwin · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2010, 12:47 PM »

Woo! You're on fire, lanux! Thanks for this one - I have Treesize Pro on my machine, but this might be nice on my wife's system

lanux128 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2010, 01:18 PM »

hehe.. what can i say? all these Easter offerings are too good to pass.

taichimaster · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2010, 06:39 PM »

Thanks! Just downloaded a copy

Seems a little bit on the heavy side though, the 64-bit version of the installer is 48.7MB.

rjbull · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2010, 08:51 PM »

Is this better than WinDirStat, freeware, or SpaceSniffer, freeware/donationware?

Steven Avery · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2010, 08:23 AM »

Hi Folks,

So far I was not able to get it to unpack and install.
Corruption it says.
Plus I see it is Net-2.0 happy.

Shalom,
Steven

Innuendo · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2010, 02:22 PM »

Quote from: Steven Avery on April 06, 2010, 08:23 AM

Plus I see it is Net-2.0 happy.

Avery, enlighten me on something. Why is requiring .Net a bad thing? I can see why people griped when one had to download huge runtimes in order to get the programs to work, but every Microsoft OS you can buy today comes with .Net pre-installed so I don't see any contention there.

Is it RAM consumption? With desktops commonly sporting 4, 6, 8 GB, or more I don't see how RAM usage would be an issue, either. What am I missing?

Steven Avery · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2010, 06:28 PM »

Hi Folks,

.Net is cumbersome, and they are release-awkward. Unlike Java, you end up with multiple .NETs on the disk, more points of failure and contention.

And why is it needed on what should be a simple disk access and display utility. Can it really give much gain ? Doubtful. It is just that the programming house is used to programming other products under the same framework. Their gain (minor), our pain.

Conceptually, the idea is fine. The problem is implementation (as shown by the need to have multiple .NETs.) and usage where it is just another failure point, and extra resource consumption, for little purpose.

Example. It is likely my download and unpack problem was .NET related. I ended up with a folder of .NET somethings unpacked and the rest went haywire. Never able to install. Too much complexity for a simple utility.

Shalom,
Steven

Darwin · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2010, 06:45 PM »

Well... try updating Java and see what happens! You have to go into Programs and Features/Add-Remove Programs and manually delete previous versions. Cumbersome. Not saying MS is perfect or anything... Just playing Devil's Advocate.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2010, 06:50 PM »

Not true of Java any more - the last few updates have started to remove previous updates (not all the way back but recently installed previous versions) so if you do one Java cleanup you should not get Java bloat in future.

Personally I don't feel exorcised about .Net any more - chances are you are going to end up with it on your system one way or another so it doesn't make much difference to me if an app uses it.

The one thing I do hate about .Net is the way MS keep installing Firefox addons without permission and half the time you can't remove them with registry editing.

Darwin · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2010, 06:54 PM »

Dang! Thanks for letting us know that, Carol. It used to drive me nuts, to the point where I've been skipping upgrades so that I can avoid the uninstallation hoop-jumping. Guess I should do my due diligence before I fire from the hip, eh?!

Anyway, more on topic, I don't have a problem with .Net, either. It used to irk me because it seemed very resource intensive years back, but I don't notice it's there anymore...

rjbull · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2010, 06:56 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on April 06, 2010, 06:50 PM

Personally I don't feel exorcised about .Net any more

Was that a Freudian slip?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2010, 07:15 PM »

Probably a Freudian slip that has avalanched

Steven Avery · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2010, 08:10 PM »

Hi Folks,

Plus we have JavaRa for removing early Javas.

The point is, as I understand it .. you cannot be sure of removing the earlier Nets. Unpredicatable results will occur, you cannot trust if a program designed for 1.5 will work under 3.0 etc. If this is wrong, share away.

Shalom,
Steven

Darwin · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:02 PM »

Quote from: Steven Avery on April 06, 2010, 08:10 PM

The point is, as I understand it .. you cannot be sure of removing the earlier Nets. Unpredicatable results will occur, you cannot trust if a program designed for 1.5 will work under 3.0 etc. If this is wrong, share away.

Ah - I see your point. It is adviseable to have ALL versions of .net installed lest some application or another insist on it... I dunno, my harddrive - even on my notebook - is vast and I don't sweat that anymore, either... Though I do like to run my computer with (relatively) few applications installed these days.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #15 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:27 PM »

Quote from: Darwin on April 06, 2010, 09:02 PM

Though I do like to run my computer with (relatively) few applications installed these days.

Thank you for sharing that, it qualifies as humorous post of the day!

Innuendo · « **Reply #16 on:** April 07, 2010, 03:12 AM »

Quote from: Steven Avery on April 06, 2010, 08:10 PM

The point is, as I understand it .. you cannot be sure of removing the earlier Nets. Unpredicatable results will occur, you cannot trust if a program designed for 1.5 will work under 3.0 etc. If this is wrong, share away.

And as I understand it...and I could be totally wrong here...is that you are not supposed to remove the earlier.Nets. If you have something installed that needs .Net v1 you need that runtime installed & if you have something that needs .Net v2 or v3 you need those runtimes installed as well, i.e. having .Net v3 alone installed will not work for programs needing the earlier runtimes. They are each mutually exclusive.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #17 on:** April 07, 2010, 12:49 PM »

The question arising is why is Microsoft taking this approach. In ten years time legacy support is going to become a nightmare by the time .Net 93 is installed.

They created enough hell with DLLs now they seem not to have learned any lessons at all!

Darwin · « **Reply #18 on:** April 07, 2010, 01:17 PM »

Hah, hah - good point, Carol. Hadn't considered that... Makes you think!

IainB · « **Reply #19 on:** April 08, 2010, 05:12 PM »

@lanux128: Many thanks for this. Very useful.
I also downloaded a trial of O&O Defrag v12 (I have v6).
By the way, way I found and fixed an installation problem with O&O Defrg - with a little help from the O&O Helpdesk.

J-Mac · « **Reply #20 on:** April 08, 2010, 06:13 PM »

Quote from: Darwin on April 06, 2010, 09:02 PM

Quote from: Steven Avery on April 06, 2010, 08:10 PM
The point is, as I understand it .. you cannot be sure of removing the earlier Nets. Unpredicatable results will occur, you cannot trust if a program designed for 1.5 will work under 3.0 etc. If this is wrong, share away.

Ah - I see your point. It is adviseable to have ALL versions of .net installed lest some application or another insist on it... I dunno, my harddrive - even on my notebook - is vast and I don't sweat that anymore, either... Though I do like to run my computer with (relatively) few applications installed these days.

Now I know that you are a software junkie, as I am, and so you must also have the same sort of "Program Setup Files" directory stored somewhere on your system where you keep all your licensed software installation files, installed and not-installed. (Mine is currently... <blush> 17.7 GB.... and that's down from 22 GB; I zipped up some larger ones and burned them to DVD!)

Jim

Darwin · « **Reply #21 on:** April 08, 2010, 09:59 PM »

Quote from: J-Mac on April 08, 2010, 06:13 PM

Quote from: Darwin on April 06, 2010, 09:02 PM
Quote from: Steven Avery on April 06, 2010, 08:10 PM
The point is, as I understand it .. you cannot be sure of removing the earlier Nets. Unpredicatable results will occur, you cannot trust if a program designed for 1.5 will work under 3.0 etc. If this is wrong, share away.

Ah - I see your point. It is adviseable to have ALL versions of .net installed lest some application or another insist on it... I dunno, my harddrive - even on my notebook - is vast and I don't sweat that anymore, either... Though I do like to run my computer with (relatively) few applications installed these days.

Now I know that you are a software junkie, as I am, and so you must also have the same sort of "Program Setup Files" directory stored somewhere on your system where you keep all your licensed software installation files, installed and not-installed. (Mine is currently... <blush> 17.7 GB.... and that's down from 22 GB; I zipped up some larger ones and burned them to DVD!)

Jim

55.5 GB

after having recently cleaned it up a bit. I'd hasten to add, though, that this includes my "can't live without" freeware applications, lots of stuff I've long since stopped using, and current drivers for my hardware.

J-Mac · « **Reply #22 on:** April 09, 2010, 02:38 AM »

Me too, though I admit I have been purging a lot of stuff from there lately. I mean, after all some of the apps won't run on any OS past Win 98SE!

Jim

Darwin · « **Reply #23 on:** April 09, 2010, 03:57 AM »

Quote from: J-Mac on April 09, 2010, 02:38 AM

Me too, though I admit I have been purging a lot of stuff from there lately. I mean, after all some of the apps won't run on any OS past Win 98SE!

Jim

I've got folders for Win 3.x apps and for DOS 5 and 6 programs in that directory. Neither of them are more than about 5 MB in size, though... Amazing!

J-Mac · « **Reply #24 on:** April 09, 2010, 04:04 AM »

Quote from: Darwin on April 09, 2010, 03:57 AM

Quote from: J-Mac on April 09, 2010, 02:38 AM
Me too, though I admit I have been purging a lot of stuff from there lately. I mean, after all some of the apps won't run on any OS past Win 98SE!

Jim

I've got folders for Win 3.x apps and for DOS 5 and 6 programs in that directory. Neither of them are more than about 5 MB in size, though... Amazing!

What are you saving them for? The price to rise on Ebay??

Jim