ITunes Folder size compared to available media in iTunes

My iTunes folder is listed at 127.95 GB, however I only have 78.42 GB of music/movies/tv shows in iTunes. I have a hard time believing that 49.53 GB are iTunes system files.... ***???

I'm not at my own computer right now but I think the television shows are all in a sub-folder in the iTunes Music folder. Same with podcasts and audiobooks. How you proceed is going to depend on your back up software. If you're just dragging and dropping to an external, I think you could close iTunes, drag the video folder out of your iTunes Music Folder, drag and drop the iTunes Music folder to the external. When it's done, be sure to put the video folder back before starting iTunes again or it won't be able to find it. If you're using back up software, just follow whatever procedures the software requires to select what you want to back up and don't select the video.
Keep in mind that I don't use Windows as my primary operating system so you may have to translate.

Similar Messages

Folder sizes 12 % larger on my new machine compared to old G5 ...

I have a folder of Raw image files on externala SATA drive.
On my new 6Core 10.6.5 folder is 124 Gigs ( on 1TB samsung Sata )
The same folder when SATA drive is attached to my old G5 system is only 114 Gigs.
It is very annoying because I thought there was some files missing , but it looks that only indicated folder sizes are different .
Is this as expected or maybe a sign of something wrong on my new system
( I had some drive corruption issues recently )

Snow Leopard uses a decimal GB unit (10 ^9^ bytes), which is about 7% smaller than the binary GB unit (2 ^30^ bytes) that was used previously. That means that all disk-space measurements will be about 7% greater when reported from a Snow Leopard system than when reported by earlier systems. This difference will be evident not just in reports of individual item sizes, but also in the numbers reported for the total disk capacity, available space, and used space of a given disk volume.

Why does Time Machine folder sizes exceed physical capacity?

I have a MAC G3 Server Serving multiple MACs as a Storage, Media Server, and Time Machine storage. These other external MACs are all running Version 10.8.3. Only the Storage server is running 10.5.8.
All of the extenal Macs use Time Machine to backup to the served Storage media volume called "Time Machine".
The physical size of the "Time Machine" volume is 2.0 TB.
Yet when I am on the G3 Server, and perform a "Get Info" on the "Time Machine" volume, and also the folder that contains the Server's backups, the stored capacities exceed the physical capacity of the drive to which the volume resides.
The single physical drive is 2.0 GB and only has one partition called "Time Machine". In the root directory of this volume there is the one folder called Backups.backupdb, and a .sparsebundle DMG file for each of the remote systems that are bing backed up by Time Machine.
Each of the sparsebundles are well below the dirve's physical capacity, but both the local server's backup folder (Backups.backupdb) and the G3 server's local volume "Time Machine" show a used capcity that well exceeds the physical capacity of the drive on which it resides.
For example, here is the information from "Get Info" on the Backups.backupdb folder on the "Time Machine" volume when viewed from all systems:
Kind: Folder
Size: 3,456,930,478,415 bytes (3.46 TB on disk) for 122,254 items
But the Physical Volume "Get Info" shows this:
Kind: Volume
Capacity: 2.0 TB
Available: 169.92 GB
Used: 3,456,930,478,415 bytes (3.46 TB on disk) for 122,254 items
(NOTE: this is identical to the size
My guess is that there is some sort of deduplication involved.
If so, I would like to know the type of deduplication is performed?
Is it File Level deduplication, Block Level, or Content Level?
Also, is the deduplication inhererant on the volume (File System) level, or only specifically for Time Machine, via symbolic links?
Thank you in advance.
Jeff Cameron

This is due to the way Time Machine stores files. While there is only one copy of each version of each file stored, there are multple links to that file, and each link is reported in Get Info at its restored size.
How Time Machine Works its Magic

Will There ever be a music player app comparable to Windows Media Player??

I continue to be discouraged since beginning to use a Mac that I can't find any music player comparable to Windows media Player and all it could do. I find itunes very annoying and have been using songbird instead but it doesn't open as a default when selecting a song from a file.
Things itunes can't do:
I can't select a list of songs from a folder and play them in the order of the files in the folder.
I can't listen to a file without it automatically being added to the list for the next time I enter itunes
I can't change the fiie name of a song and have itunes recognize the change and adapt.
It does not add songs to the song list I have added to a file folder on my computer
It also doesn't give you an option to delete all the songs that don't exist any more. If i delete something fro a file, it is still on the itunes song list and i have to manually delete each one.
Also, I can't browse by genre or one album only.. its always one big list. if i select one song from a folder to play, i tunes will next skip to the next song in the itunes player to play next.
There is no "now playing" column to see what has been played
ANyways, I just keep hoping someone will develop something, or every time itunes says it has an update - i hope.
Songbird is much better but still not top. I feel this is a big need for apple.. especially if you want satisfied customers switching from microsoft who want a comparable experience. its frustrating enough getting used to so many things, but the programs shoudl be able to do these simple things.
i cal is another story...
Just hopeful that a developer can meet these issues someday! Im sure they CAN, but someone needs to tell you they are issues!!!

Hi, Cheryl,
You are correct about some of your statements. iTunes is designed as a complete content manager, and while that works well for many people, if you want to be able to work with your files directly in Finder and play them based on that organization, then iTunes probably indeed does not work for you. Just a few notes, though:
I can't select a list of songs from a folder and play them in the order of the files in the folder.
Correct. iTunes doesn't understand folders in the OS file structure and other than just the path name to the track file doesn't care about OS folders at all.
I can't listen to a file without it automatically being added to the list for the next time I enter itunes
Also correct; iTunes needs to add the track to its library file so it can find the track. You can play tracks in QuickTime Player, though, or directly from Finder and not have to use iTunes and it's file management.
I can't change the fiie name of a song and have itunes recognize the change and adapt.
It does not add songs to the song list I have added to a file folder on my computer
Correct. iTunes has no folder-watching feature, so changes made manually wil not be recognized automatically. There are third-party utilities that can automate some of this, Hazel for instance.
It also doesn't give you an option to delete all the songs that don't exist any more. If i delete something fro a file, it is still on the itunes song list and i have to manually delete each one.
The real solution to this is to not remove tracks manually from the OS but rather to delete them from inside of iTunes. But if you really want to remove the tracks manually and then get them removed from iTunes, try this script courtesy of the very-useful Doug's AppleScripts for iTunes:
http://dougscripts.com/itunes/scripts/ss.php?sp=removedeadsuper
Also, I can't browse by genre or one album only.. its always one big list.
Turn on the Column Browser: View menu -> Column Browser -> Show Column Browser
You can select whether you wish it on top or the side, and what sections appear. You can then browse by genre, artist or album, and can play specific albums and have iTunes stop playing when the album is finished.
if i select one song from a folder to play, i tunes will next skip to the next song in the itunes player to play next.
Correct. If you uncheck all the tracks, though, iTunes will play one and stop. That often causes other issues if you uncheck them all, but unchecking a track is how you get iTunes to skip playing it.
There is no "now playing" column to see what has been played
Not if you're not using playlists, no, but iTunes DJ might be of some help in this regard. It's not designed for manual playing, but it can be sort of forced into that sort of use.
I've not seen any player that provides what I would consider to be an improvement on iTunes. Songbird is the only player I know of in current development, and it has its own strenghts and weakness. What it really comes down to is a design philosoply; iTunes is designed to handle all the management of the track files so you don't have to. For those of us who that philosoply suits, iTunes works very well indeed. For those like you who want to do your own management, iTunes doesn't suit and probably never will.
Regards.

Time Machine Folder Sizes

I have calculate folder sizes on but when looking through time machine folders the size is not indicated. Anyone know why?
Rachael

Time Machine keeps one big backup of your whole drive. Then from there, it stores hourly backups for the past 24 hours plus daily backups for the past month and weekly backups until your drive is full.
iTunes libraries are probably the biggest culprit in rapidly filling Time Machine drives. You can go into Time Machine Options to exclude certain folders to help. But in general, the design of Time Machine is that it will use up all the space you give it. Once your drive is full, it will dump the older data (I believe it will prompt you when that happens).
If you want to limit what Time Machine can use, you may want to partition your external drive using Disk Utility. That will basically 'block off' a section of the disk drive to use for Time Machine, leaving the rest available for whatever you want. Be careful, though - while partitioning a drive isn't that difficult to do (especially under Leopard), making a mistake could cause you to lose the data on the drive you're working on.

Trying to compare FCP with Media 100 for a Public Access studio

Hi all,
I am new here. I do most of the review of products for our Public Access studio. We have a couple of existing Media 100 systems and we are considering adding or upgrading our NLE capabilities. Our studio manager had a chance to look at FCP being used at our high school and she came back with a number of impressions that I wonder about and would like to vet with people who know more about FCP. So, any comments would be helpful.
The high school media person demo’d FCP for her and let her play with it a bit. After looking at it herself, she says she would definitely say Media 100 is easier to understand/use, especially if you've never used non-linear editing before. That is fairly typical of the people doing Public Access production in our town.
However, it looks to her like there are a lot of tools that come with FCP that Media 100 either doesn't have or are not easily found in it. For example, she feels FCP’s set up looks more complicated and confusing compared to Media 100’s, but in FCP you can have up to 99 video lines in a program, where with Media 100 we're just going back and forth between the a and b video lines. Plus you can have up to 99 Audio tracks on FCP as well, where our max at the moment is 8. Now as to when you would need 99 video or audio tracks, she is not sure, but it is definitely a capability that we don't have in Media 100.
Titling looked easier to her on Media 100. With FCP there were a lot of filters involved and hoops to jump through, plus she couldn't do a word with each letter a different color, for example, unless she did each letter on a different track.
The media person warned her that FCP is really large. Apparently the program itself takes up like 35 GB of space on the hard drive, and a typical 30 min. project comes in at over 100 GB! She couldn't believe it, but she was assured it’s true. Even with our longest programs, like like a School Committee meeting thqat went 3 1/2 hours, it would came in at a max of 30 GB on the Media 100. She got the impression this big difference was so because Final Cut renders everything you do, including rendering any edits you make on your footage as new files, and stores it all in a huge folder. She thinks with Media 100, you import the footage and use it as is - the only things it will render are screen freezes, transitions, and color effects. Is that sort of comparison correct (and fair), or is something being missed?
She says in her experience that something like iMovie is the most basic as far as what you can do, then Ulead would be a step above that- the editing is basically the same, but you have a few more options. Media 100 would be next as far as ease of use and understanding of the program. FCP seemed a little confusing even to her. Comments or insights?
G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Welcome to the family, maybe.
I switched from M100 about four years ago, I was never so glad to give that company the boot. A direct comparison just isn't possible but I'll try to answer some questions. There is a Media 100 forum on creativecow.net.
she says she would definitely say Media 100 is easier to understand/use, especially if you've never used non-linear editing before.< </div>
Yes, absolutely, M100 has always had an elegant and refined interface. However, the paradigm in FCP is not opaque. It's far more interesting, deeper, more complex. So, yes, it's a bit tougher to grasp. But don't sell your students/users short. They'll get it.
99 tracks is marketing BS. The serious work is done with nesting. How many public access pieces need more than 5 or 10 video tracks?
Titling in FCP depends on third party filters like Boris or tools like LiveType and Motion. The basic titling tools in FCP are lame and difficult to use, in my opinion, compared to the elegant titler in M100 (as long as you don't launch Graffiti).
The installation includes tens of gigs of animation, movie and music loop resources that you don't need to load. The suite includes Motion, LiveType, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro and FCP.
If you're shooting DV, a 3-1/2 hour show is, umm, well, you look it up, DV is DV. But if you're capturing 3 hours from each of three cameras, that's a lot of DV.
Rendering depends on lots of things. M100's native codec handles lots of realtime stuff that FCP can't unless you've got a huge Macintosh. Previewing is not a big deal at lower rez in FCP, you get used to it. .
FCP is really scary. You can look at thousands of "I'm in way over my head, HELP!" posts here. But all those folks find they slip right into the Apple paradigm, the weirdly new workflow and start exploring the wide new world of serious editing that FCP opens up. You'll hate it for a few months because it's so dramatically different from M100. You'll love it, though.
If you want to continue the thread, give the rest of the disaffected former M100 users a few days to post their comments. There are many of us here. Then maybe start a new thread, one question at a time.
bogiesan

Outlook 2010 - Data File Properties/Folder Size verses Windows Explorer pst file size

I am running Outlook 2010 32bit Version 14.0.6129.5000 on a Windows PC running Windows 7 Professional. All updates from MS are up to date.
I have several pst files I open with Outlook 2010. The size of the files displayed in Outlook are very different than what is displayed in Windows Explorer.
For example one of the pst file called "business.pst" when opened Outlook displays it under "Data File Properties -> Folder Size" that the Total Size (including subfolders) is 764,354 KB. Windows Explorer says
the file size is 1,190,417 KB.
For some reason MS Outlook 2010 is displaying the wrong folder size. Any ideas why this is the case?
Thanks,
Pat

Outlook mailbox grows as you create and receive items. When you delete items, the size of the Outlook Data File (.pst and .ost) file might not decrease in proportion to the data that you deleted, untill it has been compacted.
Normally, after you have deleted items from an Outlook Data File (.pst), the file will be automatically compacted in the background when you’re not using your computer and Outlook is running.
For an exception, when the Outlook Data File (.pst) is somehow corrupt, the compaction might not finish correctly. So the size of the Outlook Data File (.pst) file might remain the same before compaction.
To solve this, try run the
scanpst to fix the Outlook Data File (.pst) file first, after that, we can
manually start the compact command.
When finished, compare the file size again.
Max Meng
TechNet Community Support

Ipad limits on activesync folder size

i have a senior user with a brand new 32GB ipad 3g, active sync set to an exchange 2010 server. This user has approx 15-20K messages in his sent, going back to 2006. On the device, he has no limits set for manual sync on his email. What is happening is that after the initial sync of his SENT folder, it stops syncing, usually 2 or 3 days. Are there any limits on folder size, or message count, in iOS. There is plenty of space on the iPad hardware.

I don't know about limits on S40 based phones like the 6230i or 6280, but it doesn't apply to all phones and certainly not any Symbian/S60 based phone.
On S60 based devices you can install as many apps (games or otherwise) using as many MB as you have storage space available. You can also run as many apps simultaneously as you have run-time memory (RAM) available (and switch freely between them).
S60 devices (also non-Nokia):
http://www.s60.com/life/s60phones

Load tray 1 plain A or press on to use available media in hp laserjet 401

load tray 1 plain A or press on to use available media in hp laserjet 401
We use legal paper size
plz, suggest me how to solve the problem.

gyan06,
I am sorry, but to get your issue more exposure I would suggest posting it in the commercial forums since this is a commercial printer. You can do this at http://h30499.www3.hp.com/hpeb/ .
I hope this helps.
↙-----------How do I give Kudos?| How do I mark a post as Solved? ----------------↓

Is there a way to put more apps (increase the folder size limit) in iOS 5.0.1 on iPad2

I read on some site that there is an app that allows one to increase the desktop folder size limit in iOS 5.0.1 on an iPad2 does anyone have any info please?
Thanks for any thoughts in advance.....
Dave

Firstly, Thanks for taking the time to reply :-)
It's not that I want gazillions of apps, I just wanted to put more in each folder so I don't have to have multiple folders with similar names....Weather1, 2, 3,etc.... but I see your point and appreciate the thoughts.
Dave

How to view image size compared to Page size

In previous versions if you clicked the bottom left onthe frame of an image where the document size is you would get a small popup of an outline of the image size compared to the current page size. I cannot figure out how to see this in the new CS4 version. I've tried everything, help!

Hello Heiko,
I don't know, if it is possible, but I would say,
it's not implemented yet. Maybe you can change the picture size and use then the pictures, that might be a workaround, if you can't change the height and width in VC.
Best Regards,
Marcel

Finder won't display folder size in "Size" column or Info window

Normally, the Finder window will display a folder's size in the Size column. However, I have one folder which shows as "Zero KB" in the Size column. When I open the General Info window, the Size reads as "Zero KB on disk (Zero bytes) for 0 items."
In order to get the folder size I have to go into the folder, select all folders (there's many), then with either the Summary Info or Inspector window, it'll show the folder size ("185.32 GB on disk").
Why is this occurring in only this folder? Is it because it's a large folder or a folder with many subfolders?
I'm running Snow Lep 10.6.2. The folder is on an external drive in FAT32 format. I've already tried deleting the "com.apple.finder.plist" file and rebooting.
Thanks for any help.

go to view menu->show view options and check the box 'calculate all sizes". then click "use as defaults".

Finder Folder Size Calculations

When I'm archiving, I have to do a lot of Get Info to calculate the folder sizes for DVD burning. Problem I'm having is the file size calculations start taking forever after working for a few minutes, or they don't calculate at all. Usually works fine when I start but after a minute or so It's like the computer get's tired and just stops. Even if it's a 1mb folder it will have trouble.
Is this normal? Seems really odd that something so incredibly simple can make my archiving process so difficult.
Files reside on a network HD.
Thanks for any help.

I'd create a disk image of appropriate size, mount it, copy items to it until it tells you there's no more room. Then, burn it.

File / Folder size... How do Finder gets it?

Hi there!
While checking some of my hardrives for sucessfull shell script execution backups, i noticed that Finder took a loooot of time to provide the info about the Folder / File size on the Information window, while a simple ls -l could provide on the fly values regarding file or folder size, as always, fast simple and faithfull unix mindset!
Well, that makes me wonder, how does Finder calculates those values? Anyone got an hint?
Does it make it all by himself, if so. WHY? Been an "posix" system, shouldn't he be using whats already provided by its *nix heritage?
In this case, the value is already there, why don't use it and simply parse it to the desired format (MB / GB / TB)?
Maybe this could be only one of several features (GUI) that could improve it's performance from being more "conscious" of the system natively provided "toolkit".
Please, this is only my humble thouhgts on this, and please do shut me up if totally wrong!
Hope to get some nice and interesting feedback from the OS X community!
If there's a better spot to start this kind of discussion, please do mention it, i will appreciate it!
Best regards.

Properties. Short Cuts, Change Icon resolved the issue after restarting. Problem resolved.. Thank you for all the help Dwain

Share Point folder size limit - File Services

I created a new folder inside a share point using Server Admin. Is there a way to set a folder size limit (quota) for that folder.
P.S. I am NOT talking about user accounts quotas for home folders created using Workgroup Manager! ...Just any new folder created, to be used on any volume, is there a way to set a mamimum size?
For example I have a 1TB volume on my Xserve RAID. I create a new folder but want to set its maximum capacity to 200GB. Is that possible?
Thank you very much in advance for any feedback.

There's no direct way to set a limit on a folder size.
The 'simplest' method I can think of is to create partitions on your disk of the appropriate sizes and share these - they will have inherent size limits based on the size of the partition. It's a little messier but should solve your issue.
:: thinking :: you might be able to use disk images rather than partitions, although I've never tried sharing a mounted disk image, and you'd need to address automounting the disk images when the server starts, so it might not be viable.

ITunes Folder size compared to available media in iTunes

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for