It doesn't end there. When you update to a new Windows, the old files from previous Windows installation (i.e. User documents etc.) are stored inside C:/Windows.old folder, and you have around 15 days to save your important file to some other location after which Windows will delete that folder without any notice.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-...

What important things could you possibly have in C:/Windows?

Windows.old contains your User Folder which have these folders Documents, Downloads, Google Drive etc.

No, it doesn't, or darn well shouldn't.

XP put that data in \Documents and Settings\<user>. Vista and 7 put it in \Users\<user>, and some stuff in \ProgramData.

If you've got user downloads and documents in \Windows (and thus \Windows.old), you're doing something really strange.

You appear to be under the impression that windows.old is a based on the windows folder.

It's not.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. This is trivial to google https://www-howtogeek-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w1200/s/www....

Those were moved to "c:\Documents and Settings" then c:\Users a long time ago.

That's exactly why I never keep any important files on system partition. I prefer to keep Windows all by itself on a separate partition, then I don't have to worry about it messing up my things.

While I'm sorry for your loss, the idea of a cloud-based email account that doesn't delete your emails is actually pretty damn new.

When Gmail launched one of its main features was the amount of storage space - people were used to having maybe 10MB of mailbox space. Companies competed over that number. It reflects that email was never seen as being permanent, you were expected to clear old emails out, and many services automatically deleted old emails.

Classically mail was always downloaded from the MTA to your local MUA (outlook, thunderbird etc).

You should think twice about storing anything in the cloud, especially if the service is "free." Always make your own backup of anything you care about.

Basically if it's local back it up to the cloud, and if it's only in the cloud back it up locally.

I'm likely channeling Jason Scott here, but this rhetoric is not helping. Yes of course people should back things up, but responding to "I just lost things of sentimental value to me" with "well you should've backed things up" doesn't come off as helpful advice.

Really, the problem is that online services (startups that are shutting down are the worst offenders[1]) are allowed to destroy user data with reckless abandon. You may argue "hey, it's their cloud" but it's also your data -- and that's kinda like arguing that a library that accepts book donations and then goes on to shreds book that nobody is borrowing anymore is justified in their actions.

[1]: https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/

I hate to be insensitive to people, but, it is important to point these things out when the message will hit hardest.

I remember, a long long time ago, someone I knew had just ripped his massive compact disc collection to his Windows computer, and, by default, they were in encrypted WMA format. He was very receptive to me pointing out how bad DRM was, because now he couldn't copy them to his other computers, and how Microsoft lied to him.

DO NOT TRUST THE CLOUD

That's a very different scenario.

> that's kinda like arguing that a library that accepts book donations and then goes on to shreds book that nobody is borrowing anymore is justified in their actions.

You mean, all libraries?

Yeah, fair cop. My point was meant to be a library that shreds books without first attempting to sell them, give them away or otherwise archive them (which is what most libraries do before they resort to shredding books).

Not really, though. If you donate a book that cannot be made presentable with minimal effort, it will get scrapped, rather than be put up for sale or archived. There's only limited budget, and the discard bin costs less, by far, compared to staffing a book sale (even if it's once a year) or books take up space in "an archive" when another branch or library has the book in active circulation. Way more books get discarded than you might think.

It seems helpful to me. Microsoft is not a startup, there is no reason to assume they would just purge Hotmail accounts one day. Reminding people that corporations lose data, whether accidental or intentional, and that they should take individual responsibility for the data they consider significant, is important.

It probably doesn't help the parent feel much better about his situation, but it does help all the other readers to highlight and learn from his experience, and especially to emphasize that such adversarial action against user data is a significant risk at large, established companies as well as small ones.

My point was that "you should make backups" is useful advice. "You should've made backups" is not, because it places blame on the user for placing trust in someone else.

Sure, you and I know that effectively all "cloud" companies will resort to this sort of scummy bullshit, but let's not blame users who have lost data because a company decided to delete their data with reckless abandon.

> Really, the problem is that online services (startups that are shutting down are the worst offenders) are allowed to destroy user data with reckless abandon.

How much are you paying them, per month, to safeguard your data?

Respectfully, I don't think that's the right question to be asking. Yes, you're correct that since I haven't paid them they currently have no legal obligation to treat my data with respect (usually because I've agreed to non-binding EULA that is vague enough to allow for most abuses).

But look at it from a user's perspective. A small company shows up and says "hey, look at this great 'experience' you can get if you just give us some of your data". So the user gives them some of their data, and that overall builds the community around whatever the company is selling. Then one day the company decides to delete the user's data without warning (or without their acknowledgement or consent). The data itself had worth to the users, but more importantly it is the reason why the company has a community. The fact they didn't treat it with respect is an ethics problem. Just because users didn't pay you to act as a decent person doesn't mean you should treat their data as though it was worthless.

When Yahoo deleted GeoCities they managed to set the world record for the fastest destruction of the largest amount of user-created content. The entireity of GeoCities was several terabytes (in 2009 that was small enough to fit a few hundred dollars worth of hard-drives). Was Yahoo legally obligated to not delete 22 years worth of user content in a single afternoon? No. Were they complete and utter assholes for doing it? Absolutely. Was completely un-necessary? Yes.

Whatever their ads or user statstics pitched to VCs brings in.

I don't think the library comparison is close enough. More like you leave your cherished pet at the vet for the week and the vet decides to put it down because there are too many pets and their font 5 terms and conditions displayed on the wall allow them to do so.

Very similarly, my yahoo account was gone. That was a sad day, knowing I'll never get back to my old childhood emails.

>This included the emails I sent to my first love. And the ones she sent me. All gone. Because Microsoft wanted to save some tiny amount of space.

Always backup. Even if it wasn't stupid MS behavior, it could have been a server error.

Not "always backup" but "archive at the end of each year".

So if the service losses your data you lose ONE WHOLE YEAR of data?

No, thanks, always backup regularly -- in real time if possible (e.g. with Time Machine) and then secondary delayed backups (inc. remote locations).

It's a free service, it's part of the deal. If you want permanent storage, you pay.

And you STILL backup in two or more places.

There are other free services without president of doing stuff like that though. It's obviously always a risk with any service, free or not... but I have never lost an email using Gmail for the past 12-13 years, even on accounts I forgot about for 5+ years.

Just because somebody gives money to the poor in the street doesn't make those who don't bad people.

Plus, on the other hand, Gmail locked me out of several of my accounts for dubious security reasons. I lost my mails because of a suspicion behavior, which was me traveling or not giving them away my phone number. Lucky me I always have an IMAP client setup.

Unless you pay, you are the product. Don't blame them.

P.S: not saying this as a MS fanboy, as any peak on my comment history would let you see how much I blame this company for a lot of things. But this is business as usual. Plus, if emails are that important, you should have a backup.

I feel you. Same thing happened to me too. RIP those emails to my childhood friends.

I'm surprised by the amount of comments simply stating it's your own damn fault. It seems that for the OP, and for me, that this might have been the very first email that OP had. At a young age most probably. While it's not a given that emails are stored indefinitely for you online - MS didn't exactly warn or spell it out, that it at some point, at its discretion, would simply delete the emails.

I doubt that this was not explained in the TOS.

I'd expect this kind of complaint from non-technical people. Disappointed to see this on HN. You stored your data on someone else's computer and you are upset when the owner of that computer did something with it?