locked
Folder "Winsxs" size more than 6.5 gb

    Question

  • hi,

    i have a installed windows vista few minutes ago, when i checked the space of my C drive, vista took nearly 3 gb, but now i check and it occupied 7 gb, there is a folder Winsxs whose size is more than 6.5gb ... can anybody tell me why is it so and what is the solution of it, please help me.

     

    Regards,

    XeeShaN

    • Moved by Carey FrischMVP Monday, August 31, 2009 2:55 AM Moved to relevant category (From:Windows Vista Announcements)
    Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:08 PM

Answers

  • aviv00

     

    You posted some very, very bad advice on that website you referenced.

     

    The WinSxS folder is 'supposed' to have duplicates of system and other components files. This is one of the main reasons for it being created in the first place.

     

    If you remember "DLL Hell" where you would have software installation programs that would overwrite system dll files with their own versions and cause other programs to break in the process. This was a huge problem and the WinSxS folder was created to solve this problem.

     

    WinSxS contains multiple versions of many files so that a program can use whatever version that it was created for, without bothering other installed software programs on the system.

     

    Deleting duplicates in this folder will have only one result. A complete reinstallation of the operating system and other programs.

     

    Ronnie Vernon

    Microsoft MVP

    Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:43 PM

All replies

  • Hi, are you upgrade from WinXP to Vista?

    Windows XP can store old DLLs and other OS library components in the WinSxS (Windows Side by Side) folder. If an application relies on an old DLL but a newer version is part of the operating system, XP will spot this and divert DLL calls as appropriate to the old version while leaving the new version in place for other software.

    So, if you have lot of application installed, that folder may be large.

    However, if it's a clean install, what files inside that folder? Do you install many applications to Vista?

    Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:04 PM
  • Hi Richard,

                    thanks for the reply.Well i didnt upgrade winxp, i installed the fresh window, and i just installed IIS , nothing else, i am a programmer and i need VS 2005 on my pc all the time along with macro media, adobe and all of other softwares, as i was running out of space yesterday,so i uninstalled vista and installed winxp again, dont remember what files were inside the folders , but you know i was too happy to install vista, but after that incident, i am very disappoint with it. anyway thanks pal.

     

    Best Regards,

    XeeShaN

    Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:19 PM
  • You are welcome.

    If you install lot of application to Vista, the WinSXS folder maybe large as it will required to store multiple copies of DLLs in order to let multiple applications to run in the windows without compatibility problem.

    Friday, February 02, 2007 8:04 AM
  •  RichardWu wrote:

    You are welcome.

    If you install lot of application to Vista, the WinSXS folder maybe large as it will required to store multiple copies of DLLs in order to let multiple applications to run in the windows without compatibility problem.

     

    I am having the same problem, fresh Vista install, not alot of appz installed but inside the winsxs folder there's 5032 folders! That's not normal is it?

    Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:54 PM
  • I have 6400 folders in there, about 4GB.

    Clean install Vista. And I installed Office 2007 and MSN only.

    Sunday, April 15, 2007 3:40 PM
  • Thanks for your reply, so it's normal? Is there any tools or article on which files/folders that can be safely delete if there's any?
    Monday, April 16, 2007 8:03 AM
  • As searhing through the internet, seem it's not recommanded to remove the folders inside WinSXS manually.
    Monday, April 16, 2007 4:12 PM
  • Unfortunately I have pretty much the same problem,

     

    My WinSXS (c:\windows\winsxs\) contains 8259 Items totalling 5.5GB (on disk)

     

     

     

     

    This is pretty much a fresh install of Windows Vista Ultimate x64, there has been a handfull of software installed in addition to just the OS

     

     

     

     

    Is it normal for a Windows install to bloat up so much with so little installed? even tho it is a 64-bit OS, I find it hard to believe this bloating is in anyway normal

    Thursday, July 05, 2007 7:09 PM
  • I use vista ultimate. I have been using it for a half year and now the WinSxS folder occupies 3.57GB. I found that if you look at the date the folders are created, they coorespond with the date the updates are installed. Are they backups?
    Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:40 PM
  • I just install Vista Ultimate. I have only ran the updates. I have install no additional applications yet as I wanted to ghost it off so I dont have to wait that long to create a clean machine again.

    The entire install was ~3 or 4 gb range before running the updates to get it all current. now its 8gbs with my xinsxs dir being 3.5GB. It has doubled the size of my C:\Windows dir.

    Looking at whats in there, I dont need backups of the movie samples, music samples, video samples, fonts, ink recognition dlls for 8 different languages (its not even a tablet edition).
    Theres even a directory called Backup, that has more fonts.

    This is a ridiculous. I know MS wants to make this a bullet-proof OS, but this is a bit over the top.

    So, as everyone else has asked, is there a way to clean this out. I've made a ghost of it. But I'd like my ghost to be a bit smaller.

    Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:54 PM
  • I'd like to know the answer to this one too, my Winsxs folder is growing (which, I suppose is fine) but its getting close to using up all the disc space I gave to my C partition.
    So - can I delete this directory? Can I move it somewhere else? Can I switch WinSxS off?

    Any answers to this would be immensely helpful.
    thanks.

    Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:04 PM
  • I would like to know this too..
    my windows installation takes in 8.17Gigs of space..
    and that winsxs takes in 3.37 gigs.

    Bulletproof OS or otherwise.. this is unacceptable to me... so what if the CPUs have increased in capacity.. and memory is cheap..


    Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:27 PM
  • Same here, and it almost doubles its size (about 10 GB) when you install Vista x64, can I get rid of some unnecessary dlls on that folder some how????
    Saturday, October 27, 2007 7:23 AM
  •  toninnopiccolo wrote:
    Same here, and it almost doubles its size (about 10 GB) when you install Vista x64, can I get rid of some unnecessary dlls on that folder some how????

     

    I found this http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa374224.aspx doesn't help to much but at least now I know what its for right?

    Saturday, October 27, 2007 7:32 AM
  • The winsxs folder on my system, Vista 64 ultimate, is 9.53 GB. 

    However 80% of those files have a "last accessed" date 11/02/2006 - before it was even installed on my system.
    Deleting is near impossible because of having to "take ownership" first, then limiting it to only 16 files at a time.

    Why is there no automatic purge for old, unused files?
    Why are there no management options or choices at all?
    Why is MS almost completely silent on this?

    This is a bad joke on Vista users and is surely a huge reason why there will not be wholesale adoption by corporate enterprise users.  MS forcing there warped vision and methods of how to operate will not help Vista become the next XP.

    I have a 20GB Vista boot partition and recently tried to install Vista SP1 - beta.
    It needed 9GB free space - and I had to find and remove files to meet this.

    Of course the nearly 10GB winsxs folder couldn't be touched...
    Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:21 PM
  • So, while winsxs seems to be a major culprit at almost 4 GB I still dont understand why i only have 70 GB free on my 120GB hard drive. It's a brand new HP Pavillion, fresh out of the box with Vista Home. I understand that 8 GB is taken up by the recovery partition. But that leaves 103 GB on drive C, of which there is 70 GB free. The size of all the files plus hidden ones weighs in at 15 GB half of which is attributed to the Windows Folder. So what happened to the other 18 GB, and what can I do to free up some space..?

    Oh and whats the deal with the hidden folder named $$DeleteMe.$$DeleteMe.$$DeleteMe  ... etc
    Saturday, December 01, 2007 4:01 AM
  • http://www.msfn.org/board/Guide-WinSxS-Dupe-removel-t109131.html

    maybe this could help

    gl
    Friday, December 14, 2007 1:17 AM
  • aviv00

     

    You posted some very, very bad advice on that website you referenced.

     

    The WinSxS folder is 'supposed' to have duplicates of system and other components files. This is one of the main reasons for it being created in the first place.

     

    If you remember "DLL Hell" where you would have software installation programs that would overwrite system dll files with their own versions and cause other programs to break in the process. This was a huge problem and the WinSxS folder was created to solve this problem.

     

    WinSxS contains multiple versions of many files so that a program can use whatever version that it was created for, without bothering other installed software programs on the system.

     

    Deleting duplicates in this folder will have only one result. A complete reinstallation of the operating system and other programs.

     

    Ronnie Vernon

    Microsoft MVP

    Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:43 PM
  • I've been through DLL Hell, but I have not experienced it since I've been running XP, so why does Vista need to make backups of ALL this stuff.

    My gripe is that if the WinSxS was only storing versioned DLL (like the GAC does for .Net assemblies), I would be a little less bent out of shape. But, if you do some tip-toeing through the WinSxS, you'll see its backup up EVERTHING, not just DLLs.

    When I say everything, that includes wallpaper jpgs, music samples, movie samples, video samples, true type fonts, Other language resources (I did not install any other language packs (or whatever they are called)).

    Somehow we've got along very well with the XP paradigm. This really feels like a kneejerk reaction by Microsoft to try to fix something that really should be fixed other ways.

    My #1 suggestion would be that no application can update System DLLs, thats what windows update and Service Packs are for. If an application is wanting to use a specific rev of a system dll, then it has to install it local to its bin path.
    Now a counter argument to my suggestion would be that that application would not be able to take advantage of a non-breaking update to a DLL that was updated via a windows update/SP, but just looking a (very)small sampling of whats been shadow copied off, its saving copies of every build of a dll, For mshtml, there are 7 copies of it, but when I go right-click on the actual one in System32, and choose restore previous versions, it shows there are none.





    Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:15 AM
  • Indeed i agree with u but

    microsoft could use same way to solve it

    with file system that could have the same file at two dirs
    and when file need to changed its will change back to normal mode
    and save space

    another thing i think is:

    more advanced windows users
    have ablily to save their OS from going lost
    and morever with the new windows


    Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:15 AM
  • Hi,

    I'm a beginner, using Windows XP, with a lot of applications installed, looking at a 17.6Mb winsxs folder.

    Here's the problem: I'm trying to get to 15% free space on C: in order to run Disk Defragmenter.

    I have backed up C: to a Maxtor external drive. I have deleted lots of my 'big' personal files (to be restored to C: later).

    But the biggest amount of space is being taken up by /WINDOWS - 36Gb of my total disc space 50Gb.

    One of the big, possibly un-necessary folders, that I'm thinking of deleting, is /winsxs.

    The question is: Will Windows XP work OK if I delete /winsxs?

    Thanks.

    PS Sorry, I tried to contact MS Support without success, and I can't see an answer in this thread either

    Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:09 PM
  • What really bothers me about this folder is the fact that it has a folder for x86 and another one for amd64.  Why are there AMD64 folders on my Intel Core2Duo system?  Was Vista not able to detect which processor is in use?  I have a fresh install of Vista Ultimate 64bit with a couple of TINY programs (WinRar, VLC, Intel Matrox manager) and my footprint is over 14gb, not to mention a 3.7gb pagefile (this is understandable) and a 3.3gb hibernate file (notebook style system) - that all adds up to 21.5gb...  Now - I'm lucky to have 100gb volume (RAID1) bit still, this is more than 1/5 of my disk space!  It's hard to believe that all of this could not have been compressed into cabs or even a single WIM that gets mounted when a file is needed and then ONLY the needed file extracted!  This is just a ridiculous waste of space
    Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:48 PM
  • AMD64 is just the common name for the 64bit architecture introduced by AMD which was then adopted by Intel.

     

    So AMD64 is for the 64bit versions of the DLLs.

    Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:18 PM
  • It is a sad fact, but the times when software engineering problems were
    solved through intelligence instead of brute force are long gone. Go
    and check for yourself how an entire OS with a GUI used to fit in 64
    KiB memory. Alas, this was more than 20 years ago.

    With CPUs pushing to even higher performance levels and storage prices
    nose-diving, don't expect anything brighter in the future. It would be
    precious time wasted to try and optimize some system component nowadays
    by trying to fit it in some smaller footprint. The next Windows version
    will be much bigger, and much more resource hungry, this is for sure.

    It is simply the price to pay for being able to manage a HUGE software
    product as Vista. I read once that Windows 95 was coded in app. 10
    millions lines of source code, I may only guess that number for Vista
    has multiplied at least tenfold. The only way to maintain control over
    such monster is by sacrificing efficiency here and there, for
    the sake of simpler programming and management.

    But think of the opposite side of things: It is the users that demand
    new features over and over, and a new OS must live to the high
    expectations nowadays. It would be possible for Microsoft to reduce the
    requirements of the OS greatly, I'm sure, but than we would have
    thousands of angry haters complaining about the OS as not being
    adequate to the current context.

    Regarding the winsxs policy - I strongly advise not to try and touch
    anything in the corresponding folder, it isn't that straightforward
    anyway. It doubt it is the best solution to the problem, but I can't do
    anything about it. I also have a 15 GB windows folder 33 days after
    installing Vista, and it was a bad surprise for me, since storage on my
    notebook is heavily limited. But then again, I can't accuse the
    software engineers in Microsoft either, for the reasons I already
    pointed out. It's simply the price being paid for moving forward.
    Monday, March 03, 2008 3:03 PM
  • But think of the opposite side of things: It is the users that demand
    new features over and over

    No, as you can see from these forum posts, and many others across the web, users demand stabilty, performance and reliability.

    I doubt anyone cares for all the bits that have been put into Windows over the years, all we see is ever increasing disk, memory and CPU requirements for little benefit over what was shipped in NT4! (*imagine all the things that have been added to Vista could have been added directly to NT4 and no-one would have complained).

    The fact of the matter is that Windows has lost its way and become a bloated mass of inconsistent, poorly engineered, badly fitting components. The problem is more due to a lack of control over the entire thing that has allowed it to spread and sag. I'm sure someone thought it woudl be a good idea to put the winsxs directory in, but they didn't do it well enough - not if it continues to grow in size like it does. If the directory was simply a cache of files you've got to ask how could they get it so wrong? If they simply took the version number from the dll, created a directory of that name, and placed the dll in it, we wouldn't have this issue at all.

    Surely the problem is that Windows has become too complicated, too overengineered. For example, yesteray I tried to install Sql Server Express. It failed when compiling a MOF file.. ?? Things have moved on from the day when you just put a dll in a directory and it worked, its because they try all this fancy *** that it fails all the time.

    I hope the next version of Windows addresses these problems, but I doubt it will - backwards compatibility with the old crud will have to remain, so it'll only get more fragile and broken over time. Sad but true.



    Monday, March 03, 2008 3:14 PM
  • gbjbaanb: I must agree with the most things you pointed out, It's clear that Windows will have a hard way before it if things continue to emerge like that.

    Just to be a bit more constructive - there must exist a way to figure out which parts of the winsxs folder are unused. I hardly believe that the OS is capable of optimizing the folder itself. Was that the case, it wouldn't end up being filled with media files (!?) and other ridiculous stuff. I can't imagine that the software I've installed is able to deliver such a huge ammount of own specific components, so the most part of those 8GB must be some redundant information which one may be able to wipe out in a safe way. A tool able to do that will become an instant classic. Smile
    Monday, March 03, 2008 4:34 PM
  • Okay Folks... So  we have come up to the final results of this thread.
    1.  You cannot delete any duplicate files in WinSXS
    2.  It is not advisable to delete anything in this folder
    3.  The Last Accessed Date on most files in WinSxS are old
    4.  Many if not most of you are running Intel Core2 or similar (aka dual CPU)


    The solution is obvious... set windows to compress that folder and save a whole bunch of space.  If the last accessed date is so old, then your not likely accessing this folder all that often and when you do you have the power (dual cpu) to handle it.  The other way you could handle this is to run one of those tools from the former SysInternals and have it log all file activity on the computer and then locate the top 10 least accessed folders in the windows subfolder and compress ALL of them.  When the Windows subfolder footprint reaches 14 gig, something needs to be done.

    Anyhow, thought I would post my solution to all this.

    Edit:  When you go to apply the attributes in Vista there might be some files that are open at the time you attempt it.  I did this with all of my software dev tools open so that if they were accessing any files here the compress attribute would not be placed on those files.  Just tell it to ignore all when you get that error and any file or folder underneath winsxs will get the compress attribute as long as its not open.
    Monday, March 03, 2008 5:18 PM
  • @bec_consulting: thx, simple but effective tip.

     

    "When you go to apply the attributes in Vista there might be some files that are open at the time you attempt it.  I did this with all of my software dev tools open so that if they were accessing any files here the compress attribute would not be placed on those files.  Just tell it to ignore all when you get that error and any file or folder underneath winsxs will get the compress attribute as long as its not open."

     

    @Ronnie Vernon MVP: I accept that, security and protection from failures always comes with a cost. Nonetheless I think it would be a good idea if Ms would come with a "best practices" document, since there's also an fairly large installer cache, msocache and local caches from specific apps. Count them all up together and it does cost a lot of diskspace. I think Ms has only looked at the low diskcostprice while determining their policy, but for laptops users that cost is still relatively high and huge disks are still not widely spread available for laptops, only externally. And don't forget most users are exchanging their desktops for laptops nowadays.

    Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:26 PM
  • @bec_consulting: thx, simple but effective tip.

     

    "When you go to apply the attributes in Vista there might be some files that are open at the time you attempt it.  I did this with all of my software dev tools open so that if they were accessing any files here the compress attribute would not be placed on those files.  Just tell it to ignore all when you get that error and any file or folder underneath winsxs will get the compress attribute as long as its not open."

     

    @Ronnie Vernon MVP: I accept that, security and protection from failures always comes with a cost. Nonetheless I think it would be a good idea if Ms would come with a "best practices" document, since there's also an fairly large installer cache, msocache and local caches from specific apps. Count them all up together and it does cost a lot of diskspace. I think Ms has only looked at the low diskcostprice while determining their policy, but for laptops users that cost is still relatively high and huge disks are still not widely spread available for laptops, only externally. And don't forget most users are exchanging their desktops for laptops nowadays.

    Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:29 PM
  • Hi you might wonder my size 17 Gb thats include office2007 ,nero8,visual studio 2008,

    multimedia codecs,internet security software,tuneup utilitis 2008

     

    my point is yor drivers are full (bak)files

     

    try to get rind of those

    use tuneup utilitis 2008 ,it has disk cleaner that's able to detect

    those .

    Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:12 PM
  • I'm going to test deleting the files on my computer and see what happens for you and if that don't work I will try to put them on my other drive.

    I will report back the results OK!  Rob       wish me luck!

     

    Hey I tryed this but as always Microsoft has limitation on what you can do with a system folder.

    The Win SxS Folder is one of them if you delete it expect system crashes or instability.

    I advice to leave alone and try and find a work around THANK!

    Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:21 PM
  • Robert Plunk

    i did delete winsxs files but not all

    i reduce it to 300mb from 3giga

    there a files that without them the system wont load

    vlite knows the files that need to keep but u will loss windows updates
    and feathers add/remove ability

     i use it to know what files to save
    and if i wanna have it back i just copy it back from the iso

    GL

    Thursday, June 05, 2008 6:16 AM
  • @aviv00: great that you posted this link. Although MS is of different opinion (like always), you can easily delete many gigs. In a normal installation of Vista 4Gigs is an enormous amount! More then 15% of documents not used for quite some time (about 2 years) 

    @Ronnie Vernon MVP: Why is this approach taken? WinSXS is most of the time a backup for a backup and therefor a culprit. Lets make installations work for many years on a small footprint, so I do not have to reinstall this often and we will make a better world by greeing the industry. If documents are not used for a long time delete it or have some other architecture framework setup for it.

    Saturday, June 07, 2008 1:32 PM
  • Arthur

     

    Trying to explain the reasons why the WinSxS folder (Windows Side by Side) exists and why it is very large is a very complex subject. WinSxS has a long history of development, the main components in this folder are 'Side by Side Assemblies' and 'Manifests'. It was first used in Windows ME and further developed in XP. It has finally become matured in Vista. This folder has many functions.

     

    I'll focus on just a couple of the many functions here.

     

    1. The WinSxS\Backup folder:

     

    In previous versions of Windows, such as XP there was a component called 'Windows File Protection' which was used to make sure that all of the many system files were protected and backed up. These files were backed up in the %systemroot%\System32\dllcache folder. If you had a problem and lost a system file or one of these files had been corrupted, you could run the 'sfc /scannow' command and the files would be replaced with the backed up copy in the dllcache folder. The dllcache folder was typically 500MB or larger.

     

    In Vista, 'Windows File Protection' has been replaced with 'Windows Resource Protection' which, essentially performs the same function. The 'dllcache' folder no longer exists in Vista, it has been replaced with the

    %systemroot%\Winsxs\Backup folder. This folder is NOT 'a backup of a backup', it exists only to make sure that files required for Vista to boot and operate are protected.

     

    2. Manifests and Assemblies:

     

    Vista comes with a default selection of 'Shared' Manifests and Assemblies. This huge selection does not slow the system down or effect performance in any way, since the only time these components are actually loaded is when an installed program calls one of these components to be loaded. Developers may include a manifest in their program that calls one or more of these assemblies or they may install their own, private assembly in the WinSxS folder or in their own applications folders.

     

    When a program is started, if this program specifies an assembly dependency, side-by-side first searches for the assembly among the shared assemblies in the WinSxS folder. If the required assembly is not found, side-by-side then searches for a private assembly installed in a folder of the application's directory structure.

     

    Comments:

     

    1. Duplicate files. Searching for and deleting duplicate files has always been something that Windows users have performed in an effort to reduce used hard drive space. However, this was done because hard drive space was very expensive and hard drives were very small.

     

    If this was 8 or10 years ago, this would still be a viable option, but it no longer applies since hard drives have become so large and very inexpensive. When Windows XP was first released, a typical hard drive cost around 2.99 USD per GB. Today, you can find a 500GB SATA 7200RPM hard drive for much less than 100 USD. The typical cost of hard drives is less than .15 Cents per Gigabyte. This means that a WinSxS folder that is 6GB costs around .90 Cents, and uses slightly more than 1 Percent of the drive. That's about the same cost as a large bag of potato chips.

     

    2. Deleting components from the WinSxS folder. As I explained, the shared and private assemblies, manifests, backed up system files, etc, are critical to the operation of Vista and all of the installed programs. If any of these shared assemblies are removed and you install a program that requires that assembly, the program will simply refuse to run, period.

     

    3. Every system is different, when deleting components from the WinSxS folder, what works for one system, will not work for another system. Different systems, even if they have the same version of Vista installed, will typically have many different programs installed. A removed Side by Side component may not effect one system, but will effect another.

     

    4. Changing permissions on or compressing the WinSxS folder can cause problems when installing an OS hotfix and installation/un-installation of any Win32 assemblies.

     

    References:

    Isolated Applications and Side-by-side Assemblies (Windows):
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa375193(VS.85).aspx

     

    Assembly Searching Sequence (Windows):
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374224.aspx

     

    Side-by-side Assemblies Reference (Windows):
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa376414(VS.85).aspx

     

    About Isolated Applications and Side-by-side Assemblies (Windows):
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374029(VS.85).aspx

     

    Protected Resource List (Windows):
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa382530(VS.85).aspx

     

    Cost of Hard Drive Space History:
    http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/winchest.html


    If this post helps to resolve your issue, click the Mark as Answer button at the right of this message.
    This will help others who are having this issue find the answer faster.

    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:37 PM
  • Ronnie,

    Thank you for the information, links, and the history lesson on hard drive economics...who knew?  Who cared?  Certainly not anyone who follows or finds this thread.

    I just bought a new external drive, a terabyte, and you're right, it was cheap.

    That does not, however, solve the issue of a bloated winsxs folder.  Neither does an explanation of assemblies and searching sequences address the problem.

    Apparently the actual issue has been overlooked.  The problem is a winsxs folder that grows so large, with so much redundant and unused information, that it causes real problems.  This includes a folder so large that it does not leave room for defragmenting tools to work.  A folder so bloated that those assembly searches and ineficcient installation disk access slow every task to a crawl.

    If were just big, your answer might be satisfactory, but it isn't just big, it is huge (relative to a modest 40 gig installation drive) and growing.  Additionally nothing can be easily done about it, except to look at it and see that it is filled with stuff that by and large has never been (OS and Update related) or will never again (uninstalled applications) be used.

    Even if one were to want to responsibly try and cull some of these manually, they are foiled by security so tight it doesn't even let admins do anything.

    Even though I have a cheap new huge drive, it does me little good for this problem because winsxs can't be moved without serious hacks and crippling Windows Update.  The "bag of potato chips" argument also does not help computer users who use different means of storage.

    The WinVistaClub has some useful information, the conclusion of which is, don't mess with this folder and you can try uninstalling applications.


    For finders of this thread, here's the real deal.

    You can't do anything about your winsxs folder short of a reinstall of Vista, preferably to a new, larger drive and using a streamlined installation disk.  You should have known better.

    You can try uninstalling unused applications which may remove some items from the winsxs folder.

    Setting the folder to compress its contents can save some space, but as described by Ronnie above, can fubar system updates and repairs.

    If you really want to risk breaking Vista, you can use your installation DVD to boot up into repair mode and dust off your DOS chops in a console window (backing up and) moving and/or deleting items, but don't do it.

    If you must, and are willing to risk very, very annoying troubles with Windows Update, you can move the folder through a series of steps described here at Single Point of Contact and here at eeeuser.com.  But don't do it.

    The winsxs folder is huge and nearly untouchable, and you, dear reader, are SOL.


    Monday, June 09, 2008 9:47 PM
  •  

    @Ronnie

     

    i just wanna add same points

     

    1. Duplicate files, could be solved with same system that will save only if the file has been changed to file and then the orginal will go to winsxs dir

     

    2. the user could choose if he wanna perm update his hotfix like WAIK let do to it and save backup files

     

    3. they are so many ways to solve that, ms didnt think of creative solution, well didnt think about it at all

    Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:43 AM
  •  

    These economics work with traditional hard drives, sure. But in my new laptop I'm using a solid state 32g hard drive, that is meant to dramatically improve hibernation, paging and general operation. The cost of this disk is a couple of hundred £ when I purchased the laptop.

     

    So my 32g windows boot disk is virtually full, with little I can do about it (6g pagefile, 4g hibernate file, 8g winsxs folder plus all the normal stuff in there). I've had to manually redirect most of my userdata (which isn't a simple task) onto a SATA drive (this is cheap and I don't need the performance here!). I'm gonna go try redirect my Outlook OST now aswell to free up some valuable space on my drive, but again, not a 5 second point and click job.

     

    The entire point of having a solid state drive becomes very tricky to manage as Vista gives you very little control on where to put things and how to use storage efficiently. I've stopped using Offline Files as there is no way to easily control where this data is stored. I'd rather a lot of this stuff could be stored on a USB key or something and Windows could request you to insert this whenever you needed to access certain areas.

     

    Or even, give us the functionality to easily use mount points from the point Windows is installed! If I could redirect c:\windows\winsxs, c:\users, etc. to another physical disk easily, then life would be so much easier!

     

    Storage is cheap, but we are coming into a world where things aren't just thrown together, but people want to build them streamlined and efficient. I use VMware to give myself the ability to run lots of different applications and environments without having a screwed up main system. Vista have made it so that without really doing much, I have a very challenged boot system and it's very difficult for me to run even the basic setup without consuming a huge amount of resources.

     

    I loosely understand why they've done this, I just think this is poor design for the more advanced users among us.

     

     

    Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:58 AM
  • Your points are correct and if you have overflow there are solutions. It's a shame windows forum doesn't seem to help to many people in a muddle but thank GOD for all the other site's.

     Fixing Hibernation in vista if you don't want it on just go to cmd prompt and type in: powercfg -h off  then press enter to turn off hibernation space wasting contraption. If you change your mine just go back through the step and type on  at the end instead.

     

    Shadow Copy takes up alot of space as well and there is a way for turning it off! or reducing it!

     

    Defrag in vista pah.. use the AusLogics Disk Defrag instead at least you know where you are and how far the process has got. Just type in AusLogics Disk Defrag downloads in the search window!

    Friday, June 13, 2008 1:38 AM
  •  Robert Plunk wrote:

    Your points are correct and if you have overflow there are solutions. It's a shame windows forum doesn't seem to help to many people in a muddle but thank GOD for all the other site's.

     

    These forums are focused on 'helping users' solve problems, not promoting procedures that have the potential to cause corruption in the OS, such as deleting files in the WinSxS folder.

     

     Fixing Hibernation in vista if you don't want it on just go to cmd prompt and type in: powercfg -h off  then press enter to turn off hibernation space wasting contraption. If you change your mine just go back through the step and type on  at the end instead.

     

    This is a good tip, 'if' the user doesn't need the Hibernate feature.

     

    Shadow Copy takes up alot of space as well and there is a way for turning it off! or reducing it!

     

    If you turn the Shadow Copy service off, you also lose the built-in System Restore, Complete PC Backup, and the File Backup programs.

     

    Defrag in vista pah.. use the AusLogics Disk Defrag instead at least you know where you are and how far the process has got. Just type in AusLogics Disk Defrag downloads in the search window!

     

    Watching the little squares change color has never meant much to me? 

    Configuring Defrag as an automated, low priority, background process is just one more thing that we don't need to worry about. Watching defrag work has always struck me as being similar to watching paint dry.

     


    If this post helps to resolve your issue, click the Mark as Answer button at the top right of this message.
    This will help others who are having this issue find the answer quicker.

    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Friday, June 13, 2008 8:02 PM
  • So Ronnie, what of the users creating Virtual Machine, or Ghost images, that now take an extra 10GB each to store, and triple the time it takes to dump an image to a new machine ?

    In my opinion, WinSxS should be a USER selectable option.  Let US decide if this is something that is important to us, rather than forcing all users to bloat their hard drives.

    Windows should not be policing which DLLs each program should use.  That is the responsibility of the programmer.  If Windows has the wrong DLL, and the programmer has done such a shoddy job referencing code from a DLL, that they require a specific version of it, they should simply dump the version of the DLL that their program uses into the folder their program installed to (in 'Program Files').  This would allow the DLL to get removed when their program gets uninstalled, it would allow users to determine if they still need the DLL, and it would show users what program is causing the bloat on their hard drive.

    If Microsoft updates their DLL in a service pack, it is as simple as the programmer of the 3rd party software releasing an update for their software that removes the DLL from their program directory, to use the new one that was patched into Windows.  This is not rocket science, but the way it is being handled really shows that it isn't any kind of science any longer.

    With the way WinSxS is behaving now, it will even store two of the exact same version of the same DLLs simply because they were installed with different pieces of software.  Why not just store those DLLs in the program's installed folder, and keep WinSxS as simply a database of which programs have a substituted DLL, so it knows to use the one in it's program directory, not the Windows default one ?  This, again, would allow users to see which programs are using these DLLs, decide if that program is worth keeping, and if they feel it is not worth the extra space, they have the ability to remove the DLLs associated with that program.  Dumping it all into a special Windows folder only obfuscates the source of these files, and prevents them from ever being removed.  This was a bad plan from the start, and needs immediate resolution, because there ARE people out there greatly affected by this one folder's inflexibility.
    Saturday, June 21, 2008 12:44 AM
  • Well, I like my 13GB winsxs folder.

    Without using it, my USB port recognised nothing.

    But, when I had to search for the usbstor.inf driver, I directed the search to winsxs folder, and it all works now.

    Following endless suggestions of wading around in the registry, copying and pasting the usbstor.inf file from a laptop that had recognisable ports, downloading the file etc all produced no solution to my problem.

    Winsxs helped me out instantly. Thank you winsxs. Months of grief solved in 5 minutes.

    You can grow to 15GFB now if you want. xxx

     

    Monday, June 23, 2008 8:19 PM
  • So Ronnie, what of the users creating Virtual Machine, or Ghost images, that now take an extra 10GB each to store, and triple the time it takes to dump an image to a new machine ?

    This is my immediate problem at home, my old XP backups of the System partition used to fit on a single DVD, now I need 3.

    I appreciate the time Ronnie took to explain how hard drive space is cheap (he should go to a .net forum and tell people how memory is cheap too), but I have a backup system at work. 100 clients backed up everynight, at an average of 5Gb of "bloated" WinSxs directories adds up to a lot of expensive scsi discs. You don't think we back our corporate business to a single IDE Maxtor do you?

    I think the problem is that there is this directory that purports to solve a problem (that I've never noticed being a real problem before, TBH) but introduces another one. One that annoys people, partly because we don't like inefficiencies  and partly because we feel helpless at Microsoft's decisions. I can't really believe that it is working correctly if my WinSxs directory is bigger than my Windows system. I'd expect MS to help us by looking into the problem and not patronising us by telling us everything is alright and its there for our benefit.


    As Ronnie mentioned, this "solution" is something that has a long history - that's never a good thing in my experience.

    I feel a tool is required to sort out the issue we're seeing, if not a rewrite of the code that provides this solution.

    Monday, June 23, 2008 10:12 PM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:
    Watching defrag work has always struck me as being similar to watching paint dry.
    you sure did not paint a thing in your life. you NEED to check the status, the drought of your work for several reasons from time to time.and you should learn more solidarity, just think about the SSD and MID.microsoft should be aware of people of your type because they are in desperate need of a really compact OS for the future.
    Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:39 PM
  • Moli

     

    Sorry, I didn't mean to pick on you, I didn't realize you were a painter?

     

    Maybe I should have used a different term.

     

    Disclaimer: The following comment is not meant to reflect on the fine professionals who work in the Sod or lawn mowing industry.

     

    How about watching defrag work is like watching grass grow? Does this make more sense to you?

     

    And exactly what does watching the progress do for you? Do you actually see the files that are being moved or where they are being moved to? In the past you couldn't find anyone, anywhere, who even liked defrag and now, all of a sudden, it's everyones sweetheart.

     

    Further, why are we even discussing defrag? This thread is supposed to be about the WinSxS folder.

     

    This also has nothing to do with Solid State Hard Drives, this is emerging technology that has only been available to the general computing public for a relatively short time, because of the extremely high cost. Only people who can really afford it should even consider buying one of these. Any early adopters of any new technology have always had to make concessions, until the inevitable competition kicks in and that technology becomes readily available, at a reasonable cost. That industry is moving very fast now, I hear they are already testing 1.5 Terabyte SSD units.

     

    They will likely have a 100 to 200GB SSD, affordably priced, by the end of this year and by the time the next version of Windows is released, you will probably see a reasonably priced 500GB SSD.

     

    They even have emerging storage technology that is going to mean a 1 inch drive that will fit in an iPod typr device with 100GB or more of storage space. Also, how about a laptop with Dual 3.5 inch 1 Terabyte drives.

     

    What do you mean by "they are in desperate need of a really compact OS for the future"???

     

    References:

     

    Solid-state drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

     

    BBC NEWS | Technology | Tiny drives set for space boost:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4411649.stm

     

    BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Thanks for memory (but I need more):
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3673262.stm

     

     

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:10 AM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:
    Do you actually see the files that are being moved or where they are being moved to?
    OH, YES! You can see individual files! (oodefrag for example if i remember right)
    In the past you couldn't find anyone, anywhere, who even liked defrag and now, all of a sudden, it's everyones sweetheart.
    15-10 years ago i used to defrag every week. now i defrag about once in five years if ever. And I see the same fashion everywhere i look.
    What do you mean by "they are in desperate need of a really compact OS for the future"???
    Never mind, they are already late. References: google microsoft extends support for windows xp
    Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:04 AM
  • I am not sure if you missed my reply in this thread Ronnie, but the issue is not just people with small SSD hard drives.  A bloated OS causes a lot more problems than just on the hard drive that it is installed on... unless you are taking a stance that backups and hard drive images are something that people should no longer be concerned with.  Well, if so, how about Virtual Machines ?  Microsoft is very clearly designing their OSes to be an all-virtual environment (as evidenced by Windows Server 2008) and having a client OS that takes 10x more disk space than it's predicessor, and grows exponentially as it gets used, is unacceptable.  Sure, client machines may have cheap hard drives, but current NAS arrays are anything but cheap, and carving out a LUN to store virtual machine images would end up costing TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars.  It goes against the direction Microsoft is moving with their virtual environments. 

     

    This is not simply an issue of inconvenience.  This is a problem, that needs to be fixed.

     

    Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:35 PM
  • Moli

     

    I'm sure that you can find a product to fit whatever agenda you are promoting, but we are talking about Windows defrag here.

     

    Defragging the hard drive is still an important maintenance procedure to keep everything optimized. Making it a background process was a good move, which makes it one less thing that users need to be concerned about.

     

    You will always have products that perform the same functions with so-called 'features' that were 'missing' from the included product.

     

    The bottom line is that the Windows defrag works just fine.

     

    "Never mind, they are already late. References: google microsoft extends support for windows xp"

     

    Sorry, but I get a chuckle everytime I see someone post and compare XP with Vista. If you use that same Google groups archive to go back to 2002, you will see the exact same message, with XP as the overbloated os and Win98 or Win2k as the best os every built. Nothing has changed.

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:31 PM
  • 3Z3VH

     

    Yes, I did see your previous message.

     

    It just did not make sense? What you described as the 'fix' is exactly how it was done in the past and exactly why we ended up with the mess. It just doesn't work.

     

    Make the WinSxS assemblies a "user selectable option"? How exactly would this work? You may as well be saying that the user could make using the System32 folder an 'option'.

     

    Windows does not 'police theDLLs'? The developer still has all of the same options for installing their programs, using the WinSxS assemblies is not 'required', they can still install their own DLLs in their own programs folder, they can bind to the DLL in the System32 folder, install their own private assembly in their own programs folder, or they can bind to one of the native, shared assemblies, in the WinSxS folder.

     

    Read this web page again.

    Assembly Searching Sequence (Windows):
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374224.aspx

     

    As far as your current message is concerned, I don't think you are giving enough credit to the entities that use NAS arrays or large virtual machine solutions. I'm sure that they are able to implement backup solutions that precludes increasing their expenses by 'ten of thousands of dollars'.

     

    As far as the amount of space the WinSxS folder uses, I still maintain that it is not the overwhelming problem that many in this thread have described.

     

    "having a client OS that takes 10x more disk space than it's predicessor, and grows exponentially as it gets used, is unacceptable."

     

    This overall size increase is not unique to Vista? Any operating system that supports new technological advancements and features, and still 'must' be backward compatible, will always be bigger.

     

    Saying that it 'grows exponentially' assumes that the more it grows, the faster it grows which is wrong. It does not 'grow as it gets used'? The WinSxS folder isn't 'constantly growing' it only grows when something is added to it and this only happens when a new program or update is installed that adds new assemblies. The WinSxS folder has it's own scavenging component that marks replaced assemblies for deletion and eventually deletes them. This cannot be an immediate function, because if the replaced assembly is deleted, how do you then uninstall the program that replaced it?

     

    Microsoft has respond to this issue. During the SP1 beta, there was a lot of concern about the size of the WinSxS folder and how much it increased when SP1 was installed. This is why the SP1 Cleanup Tool was included in the final release. It immediately deletes any replaced assemblies and has been shown to reduce the size of that folder by up to 2GB. Of course, the problem with this is that the normal scavenging of that folder is forcibly bypassed and you will no longer be able to uninstall SP1 if problems occur.

     

    My main focus in this thread is to try and convince users who read this, that despite all of the issues with the size of this folder, selectively or indiscriminately removing assemblies is definitely not a good idea.

     

    How can you possibly provide support after a user runs a program that selectively removes critical components, based on some arbitrary value such as the last accessed date? How do you actually determine that a shared assembly will not be used sometime in the future?

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:55 PM
  • &n******sp;Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote: I'm sure that you can find a product to fit whatever&n******sp;agenda you are promoting,&n******sp;******ut we are talking a******out Windows defrag here.man, you're pure evil or dum******. no proof or fact is enough for you. yeah, it is an easy life. XP as the over******loated os and Win98 or Win2k as the ******est os every ******uilt. Nothing has changed.this is simply not true. give me news or articles a******out xp ******eing a financial failure or lack of ms os in a new hit segment of the industry etc. i'm tired of you and off.
    Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:38 AM
  • OK, can we get back to the issue please and stop winding each other up.
    Yes, Ronnie, as you pointed out this thread is about WinSxS. So stop talking about SSD drives and whatnot. Ignore the trolls.

    Now:
    Microsoft has respond to this issue. During the SP1 beta, there was a lot of concern about the size of the WinSxS folder and how much it increased when SP1 was installed. This is why the SP1 Cleanup Tool was included in the final release. It immediately deletes any replaced assemblies and has been shown to reduce the size of that folder by up to 2GB. Of course, the problem with this is that the normal scavenging of that folder is forcibly bypassed and you will no longer be able to uninstall SP1 if problems occur.

    What you're saying here is that MS noticed how poor the WinSxS solution is and provided a workaround for one of their products that really showed the problem. This in no way resolved the problem for all the other non-SP1 products that are sitting in the WinSxS directory and have no way of being cleaned up or out. The scavenging is either not doing its job well enough, or cannot do its job well enough without some human intelligence (ie I can tell it which apps I will never uninstall or I uninstalled ages ago, that would be impossible for it to figure out itself).

    So, how about a tool that helps us do this. There are already tools to remove entries from the Add/Remove programs list and the registry, why not here too.

    Incidentally, I used to remove the old uninstall directories from XP's windows directory too, those hotfixes and updates would never be uninstalled by me, so there were wasted space.(I know if I had to get rid of one it meant a reinstall of the OS, but we do that reasonably regularly anyway).


    Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:50 AM
  • I also like the idea of automatic defragmentation, it's the best way to ensure that defragmentation occurs whenever it's necessary and there is no need for the user to waste his/her time scheduling a defrag or forgetting to. I always support automation of essential maintenance tasks; the user experience should consist primarily of using the computer and not maintaining it. I suspect, that's why microsoft made the vista defragger semi-automatic, and it's a step forward from the XP defragger in many ways. But it's not without it's shortcomings, such asthe lack of a proper GUI and defrag speed. These are among other reasons I use a third party proper automatic defragger on my machine(s), and I am happy that I don't need to waste time scheduling defrags for disks in multi TB arrays.

     

    As for Vista vs XP, I generally like Vista, but getting SP1 (yes, it showed up in MS updates) onto my laptop was an exercise in pure anger and frustration. Vista is definitely not without flaws, some of them very annoying/negative, and this is not acceptable in a 'modern' OS.

     

    I hope Win 7 is leaner than Vista, even if it means sacrificing some backwards compatibility.

    Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:43 PM

  • What you're saying here is that MS noticed how poor the WinSxS solution is and provided a workaround for one of their products that really showed the problem.

     

    That was not what I said?

    I said that the cleanup tool "immediately deletes any replaced assemblies and has been shown to reduce the size of that folder by up to 2GB."

     

    The cleanup tool in no way reduced the original size of the WinSxS folder. It only deleted the assemblies that were 'replaced' by the SP1 update. The amount of reduction in the size of that folder depended on what programs and applications were installed on each individual system. If an installed program 'depended' on a previous version of an assembly, that SP1 updated, then that assembly was not removed. This is why some users saw a reduction of 'up to 2GB' while other users saw a reduction of only a few hundred MBs, or less.

    Your thinking of the SP1 update like it is a typical 'program' which it is not. It's an operating system update.

     

    This in no way resolved the problem for all the other non-SP1 products that are sitting in the WinSxS directory and have no way of being cleaned up or out. The scavenging is either not doing its job well enough, or cannot do its job well enough without some human intelligence (ie I can tell it which apps I will never uninstall or I uninstalled ages ago, that would be impossible for it to figure out itself). So, how about a tool that helps us do this. There are already tools to remove entries from the Add/Remove programs list and the registry, why not here too.

     

    The WinSxS folder does contain any 'products', it contains the libraries of DLL, EXE, MUI, MSIL and other files that are available for developers to use when they install their programs and applications. How do you determine which assemblies to remove when a program you install some time in the future may depend on one of these assemblies?

     

    Removing entries in the Add/Remove list and the registry is cosmetic and does nothing to gain disk space. This does not remove the uninstall information which is usually kept in the individual programs folder 'uninstall.exe' file.

     

    Incidentally, I used to remove the old uninstall directories from XP's windows directory too, those hotfixes and updates would never be uninstalled by me, so there were wasted space.(I know if I had to get rid of one it meant a reinstall of the OS, but we do that reasonably regularly anyway).

     

    Did you actually gain anything? Most hotfixes and updates are measured in xxxkb, unless they are an update to a operating system application. Is this worth chancing an unnecessary reinstall and possible loss of important data?

     

    Take a close look at the WinSxS folder. The vast majority of the assembly folders in there are also measured in KB, not >MB.

     

    Regards,

     


    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:19 PM
  • Ronnie:

    Your points are valid, but they are not addressing the problems that many of us are facing.

    You're referring to a desktop paradigm with apparently unpartitioned system drives. So many of us have been conditioned to create minimal system partitions, and setting dual boots for XP to handle programs that just weren't working with Vista (old tax software, etc), that we're working with only a fraction of the drive to begin with. Then you need to consider how many people are running laptops as their main computers - very different economic model for various reasons before you even get to SSHDs.

    I bought a fairly well specced laptop last year. I have 100GB total, with 20GB Vista and XP partitions. I've got a few terabytes worth of external storage/backups, but that's not what walks around with me inside my laptop. This was working fine before SP1 (well maybe a little light on space in the Vista partition, but close enough). Now I'm getting low disk messages daily. I'm purging everything I can but SXS is taking up 6GB and User Data is taking up 2GB. The whole point of small partitions is so that you can set up your backups intelligently and ghost/format as needed.

    Now I'm faced with trying to move my partitions and gain space. Can you say non trivial?

    The people who are running into this problem seem to be advanced/power users and you are not treating us with respect. Many of us could be MVPs, devs, PMs, etc if we want to or our careers had taken, or take in the future, different paths. You are lecturing someone about how he can get a cheap SSHD at the end of the year. So freaking what?

    We have problems NOW, with hardware we have purchased within about a year. The absolute last thing I expect to see from an MVP is the equivalent of classic lazy tech support "you should reformat and reinstall and see if that works". Yes how about I burn 40 hours of my time, and everyone else burns 40 hours of their time, because you don't care to address our legitimate concerns? I don't think so.

    Please help us get solutions that don't involve repartitioning drives, buying new laptop drives (especially non-trivial for SSHD), or crippling Vista. Being an MVP is about creating positive user experiences, being a leading user advocate to the development teams, and treating users as intelligent adults. While it can be challenging, taking a "shut up, noobs" approach is less than helpful and liable to lead to a quick end to your status as an MVP.
    Friday, July 04, 2008 4:18 PM
  • I have to agree. Ronnie, even though your an MVP, you sound like an idiot. Everyone answering in this thread have issues with disk space, just aknowledge that please.

    I am using SSD drives today! And it is not the 200GB or 1,6TB drives, its two 16GB drives in raid0. Now I dont want to remove any of the programs installed on the SSD disk drive, as they are installed there for the increased performance. The WinSxS is basically a resource folder that is rarely used and has no need what so ever to be on my performance SSD's. If it could reside on my raid 5 array with tons of space, it would not matter, but as long as it stays on my Vista partition, there is a BIG issue.
    Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:06 PM
  •  Neverest wrote:
    I have to agree. Ronnie, even though your an MVP, you sound like an idiot. Everyone answering in this thread have issues with disk space, just aknowledge that please.
     
    The only people in this thread who are having 'real' issues with disk space are those who installed Vista on a drive that did not meet the minimum requirements.
     
    Let me know if there is something, in the following, that you don't understand and I'll do my best to explain.
     
    Recommended minimum hardware requirements for Windows Vista.
     
    Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Enterprise, and Windows Vista Ultimate.
     
    40-GB hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space (the 15GB of free space provides room for temporary file storage during the install or upgrade.)
     
    System requirements for Windows Vista:
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919183

     

    I am using SSD drives today! And it is not the 200GB or 1,6TB drives, its two 16GB drives in raid0. Now I dont want to remove any of the programs installed on the SSD disk drive, as they are installed there for the increased performance.
     
    From several of my previous posts in this thread:
    "Early adopters of newer technologies (SSD) will always be caught in a lurch until the technology and competition catch up."
     
    The WinSxS is basically a resource folder that is rarely used and has no need what so ever to be on my performance SSD's. If it could reside on my raid 5 array with tons of space, it would not matter, but as long as it stays on my Vista partition, there is a BIG issue.
     
    The WinSxS folder is used in just about every function of the operating system. Almost all of the system files contained in the %systemroot%, System32, and other system folders, are 'hard linked' to files in the WinSxS assemblies. Hard links cannot span volumes. even on the same drive. If the WinSxS folder is moved to a different volume, all of the hard links are broken and cannot be recreated there.
     
    The WinSxS folder is just as important as the %systemroot% folder. This is why it was placed there. Trying to move the WinSxS folder to another drive would have the same result as moving the %systemroot% folder to another drive.
     
    My only reason for participating in this thread is to inform people about these facts, but everyone keeps shooting at the messenger.
     
     

    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:38 AM
  • I've just installed vista x64, after about 13 hours my Win SxS folder is at 9GB, and i've still got a whole load of development tools to install yet.

    I installed vista onto a clean 40GB partition, which is now at about 75% capacity after only installing a few smallish components, plus one large one (vs2008+msdn library)

    In an earlier post you alluded to an internal process that manages the winsxs folder and intelligently reclaims space from files that it is convinced are not needed. How long would you estimate before i start to see some returns?

    At this rate i'll have to resize my partions within the week Tongue Tied
    Monday, July 14, 2008 3:04 AM
  • Wow, how many random tangents can we go in 1 topic?

     

    My point about my installation with a 32g SSD is a very valid situation, and as many others have pointed out is akin to virtualisation. I am a VMware and Storage professional and I work with minimal installations a lot. I can get Windows 2003 Server or XP down to about 800mb, and when you've got at least 200 VMs, this becomes quite a nice compact footprint.

     

    If I want to start brokering VMs for my end-users. You're saying I need 40g per VM minimum? A massive increase on what I needed for 2003 and XP! Great for the storage vendors, but how do I sell a 50 times uplift on the previous storage footprint just to do an OS upgrade?

     

    And as others have said, if I want to back these up, the base footprint is now 40g, and it seems the WinSXS folder is changing quite a lot, so that's also a huge rate of change on the backups, so your incrementals (or snapshots) are going to have a huge overhead too.

     

    My question is simple, with all the other random access areas or non-critical areas of the OS I can configure where put them. I always move my pagefiles, temp files, users dirs and even offline files (with some tweaking) away from the installed OS so I can streamline that nice and trim and get tight backups of the important stuff. I understand we need WinSXS along with all the other stuff, But I don't want it on my C Drive.

     

    So very simply, why is there no process to allow me to move WinSXS to somewhere else?

     

    On a side note, I agree that everyone did the same complaining about Windows XP, and in there time 2000, 98 and 95. Everyone complained about ME, but that was a shocking OS. No one likes change, but it doesn't have to be a constant battle for the end-user and IT administrators.

    Monday, July 14, 2008 9:50 AM
  • I think part of the issue is that WinSxS is an important part of how the OS works. This always was the case, but now something was changed that has just filled this directory up with a ton of stuff. Whether all that stuff is needed or not is the big deal to us.

    I've just looked at my XP box's WinSxS directory, its 99Mb, and this is on my development box with 4 versions of Visual Studio installed (plus other assorted gumpf)! My home Vista box should not have anything like as much, as its got relativey very little installed there.

    Ronnie did imply there was a 'scavenger' that would remove obsolete files from the directory, but I can't see that working as accurately as we'd like - after all, an automated system cannot make certain decisions over what should or should not be present whereas a human can make that call.
    I know MS prefers us not to do this, as we can't be trusted not to break things (sigh), but I feel I have the skills, experience and personal responsibilty to take the hit if I delete everything there and something stops working :-)


    I have VMs too - we have a minimal install for our test lab, many of those (XP) images are set to a 10gig partition in the first place! I think its experiences like this that have made businesses demand XP instead of Vista.


    Monday, July 14, 2008 10:02 AM
  • I've just spotted my 9.5GB winsxs folder on my newly installed (less than a week old) Vista 64 Ultimate system and a search got me to here.

     

    Whilst I suspected it was caching files like the good old dllcache used to do, I also found it is holds stuff that really should not be cached. I did a search on all files over 10MB and found a COPY of the 200MB of dreamscene videos that are installed with Ultimate! That doesn't quite fit in with the scenario of keeping assembies and executables. Why the *** would I want a second copy of of those?

     

    I've also seen huge dll's for Microsoft games (Mahjong, Chess, PurplePlace), extra copies of the Windows Media Centre sample videos (Vertigo, Apollo 13, etc.) which I have actually deleted from media centre, but they are still in winsxs. I must be up to around 1GB of wasted space of pre-installed games and videos, and have only looked at a few files.

     

    And as for that persons comment about VM's that you then put down, he is absolutely correct. I use VM's all over the place, copy them for testing, etc. and if I put Vista onto those VM's, thats a 10GB bloat on every damn virtual system disk. That's a good way of chewing up disk space. Fortunately they don't run Vista 64 Ultimate, but I'm now off to see how much wasted space there is.

     

    Sorry Ronnie, but you can't excuse this. Whilst I understand your argument and being a developer myself I accept it (to a degree), there is no legitimate reason for keeping copies of everything in Windows like this. That's what backups are for.

    Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:13 PM
  • Ronnie, I have a question for you. How is it that C:\windows\winsxs in XP is usually less than 100MB in size(mine is 36.8MB) and C:\windows\system32\dllcache on my machine is 60.2MB in XP, and all of my Windows Updates hotfix folders, and ServicePackFiles folder is only 1.32GB in size total. This makes 1,320 +36.8 + 60.2=1,417MB in XP.

    So the Vista \Winsxs folder has redundant Assemblies, and other stuff in there to remove the possibility of DLL [WhereSatanLives], and also contains what XP had in \system32\dllcache and the Windows Update uninstallers. Am I correct? How is it that Winsxs exceeds this amount sooo much in comparison to XP's 1.147GB? XP has no problem with dll
    [WhereSatanLives],  XP doesn't need ridiculous amounts of redundant files in order to function perfectly, and XP has far more windows update rollback packages to keep in comparison to the amount of hotfixes Vista  has had
    .
    I have a feeling it is all about the .net framework, isn't it? I remember you mentioned that .net in Vista is 'built in' to the OS, vs with XP, it isn't. In XP it is a virtual machine, like Java, and in Vista, it must be a virtual machine too. I think what you meant by it being 'built in' was that some components of vista were compiled to CLR (managed code), in other words they were compiled to use .net.
    But that doesn't explain why winsxs is often more than 5GB in size on a fresh install of Vista? Last I checked, a piece of software compiled for .net, doesn't dump a large number (maybe not any) files into \Winsxs in XP. My very very mature XP folder size is 4.23GB in size total.

    I don't understand why so much redundancy is needed to 'keep Dll
    [WhereSatanLives]at bay', when XP does it perfectly with a far smaller footprint.

    Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:58 AM
  • I mean, to keep dll [WhereSatanLives] at bay, all ya have to do is include the version number of the dll in the file name! Duh, they've been doing that for a long time.
    Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:05 AM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:
    The only people in this thread who are having 'real' issues with disk space are those who installed Vista on a drive that did not meet the minimum requirements.
     
    Let me know if there is something, in the following, that you don't understand and I'll do my best to explain.
     
    Recommended minimum hardware requirements for Windows Vista.
     
    Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Enterprise, and Windows Vista Ultimate.
     
    40-GB hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space (the 15GB of free space provides room for temporary file storage during the install or upgrade.)
     
    System requirements for Windows Vista:
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919183


     
    Ok so I have a 80gb HD in my laptop. With only a few other programs instaled and now I only have 7gb free!  So hows that for minimum system requirement! LOL!

     Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:
    My only reason for participating in this thread is to inform people about these facts, but everyone keeps shooting at the messenger.
     


    70+ posts and still NO SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND EXCEPT....well NOTHING!!!!!

    No wonder people switch to MAC
    Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:45 PM
  • KCrain

     

    It's not very likely that your current disk space problem has anything to do with the subject of this thread.

     

    If you are actually looking for a solution, and not just ranting, go to the following link, start a new thread describing the problem, and you will get a solution.

     

    Windows Vista Setup - TechNet Forums:
    http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=719&SiteID=17

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:14 PM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

    If you are actually looking for a solution, and not just ranting, go to the following link, start a new thread describing the problem, and you will get a solution.

     

    I've tried very hard to be constructive and not rant at all and I'm still lacking a solution.

     

    Why can I not easily move the WinSXS folder to another location?

     

    On my laptop it'll save my precious SSD, in my VM's, it'll save on precious teir1 storage and make backups quicker and easier. Every other storage hungry part of windows allows me to configure it.

     

    Even if I have to make a bunch of reg hacks I'd be happy, I just want to be able to manage the location. I understand (somewhat) the justification for it, I just don't want it on my C: drive.

    Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:14 PM
  • I've found a way to move \windows\winsxs ,  something I found.


    http://aspoc.net/archives/2007/12/05/how-to-move-the-winsxs-directory-in-vista/

    Be careful! Backup Backup Backup first!

    Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:36 PM
  •  Danwat1234 wrote:
    I've found a way to move \windows\winsxs ,  something I found.


    http://aspoc.net/archives/2007/12/05/how-to-move-the-winsxs-directory-in-vista/

     

    Fantastic Danwat, that's superb and the first useful reply I've seen in this topic! Although I still don't fully understand why the WinSXS folder has to be so frustratingly large, atleast I can have some control over it!

     

    Huge thanks!!!

    Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:41 PM
  • There you go with your links again! lol I don't think anyone cares about what you have to say anymore. I think they are here to talk to other people that are actually having a problem with the WinSxS file folder and YES it is over 10gb of HD space so don't tell me it isn't a problem.  I'm glad to see that SOMBODY out there actually did post good info on this subject cause you obviously don't want to help. Cause after 5 pages of posts this is the first solid solution i have seen. Hows that for ranting and raving! and yes yes that was not a question......
    Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:16 PM
  • @ronnie since i can't quote him anymore LOL LAME pfff
    Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:18 PM
  • Chris

     

    There just isn't any documented way to move this folder, at this point.

     

    One of the real showstoppers for this is the fact that the vast majority of the system files in Vista are hard linked to each other. The reason for using hard links is that, although the same system files appear in different locations, the actual file data for these files only exists in one location on the system volume. This means that when you update/change any one of these hard links, all of other hard links for that file will also reflect the changes since all of these changes occur on the actual file data.

     

    The problem, with trying to move the WinSxS folder occurs, simply because hard links cannot span volumes, so any attempt to move the WinSxS folder, to another volume, results in all of these hard links being broken.

     

    Consequently, you end up with what amounts to 2 completely separate instances of the system files with no way to update or otherwise service these files. Not to mention installed programs that bind to a particular version of a DLL file that only exists in one of the Assemblies in the WinSxS folder.

     

    Hard Links are transparent to Windows Explorer, but a real eye opener for me was when I used a small utility that not only reveals all of the hard links on the system volume, but it also shows how many hard links exist for each file and also enumerates the location of each hard link. The utility adds a 'Link Properties Tab' to the standard right click/Properties dialog.

     

    If you want to see this, go to the following website, read the documentation, and download/install the utility at the bottom of the page. It is very stable and can be easily uninstalled, if you wish.

     

    Link Shell Extension:
    http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/hardlinkshellext.html

     

    Regards,



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:20 PM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

    The problem, with trying to move the WinSxS folder occurs, simply because hard links cannot span volumes, so any attempt to move the WinSxS folder, to another volume, results in all of these hard links being broken.

     

    The more I find out about the WinSXS folder, the more I wonder what the *** Microsoft were thinking? I really have no idea why this has to be so bloated, so complex, and so impossible to control. This is a huge oversight from Microsoft, considering everything that is currently going on in the industry (virtualisation, desktops on enterprise storage, thin workstations). I guess it just proves that Vista is going to be a short lived OS until we wait for Windows 7 which promises to actually deliver.

     

    I've been fighting with Vista for over a year, trying to fool myself that it can be mastered and there are some good features in it, but I just keep getting stumped and shocked by some of the "features".

     

    I'm sorry, this is a bit of a rant, but it's frustrating when MS are starting to actually make some good software (Win 2003 was not bad, 2008 is great, Exchange 2007 and SQL 2005 are the first decent apps from them too) but with this thrown in the mix. I guess I'm just more disappointed than angry or frustrated.

    Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:29 PM
  •  

    Sorry, is h.e.l.l. swearing? I'm not used to being censored!!!
    Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:31 PM
  • Chris

     

     

    Being a moderated forum, I know they probably have a list of words that will be replaced with *** when they are detected, but I didn't know that particular word was on that list.

     

    As to the future of Windows, the side-by-side saga goes all the way back to before 2000 and ME, when it was first, gingerly, implemented. It was made much more apparent in XP, if any of the components/software that used it was installed.

     

    Although it's much more matured and integrated in Vista, it's still a work in progress.

     

    This is just my own opinion, but I think in Windows 7, or maybe a later version, this effort represented now by WinSxS, will finally be matured. You will probably see the Windows, System32, Program Files, and most other traditional folders disappear. Everything will be completely based on 'isolated components' that will have the ability to share parts of the individual components and reside in one folder, similar to WinSxS.



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Friday, July 25, 2008 1:19 AM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

    This is just my own opinion, but I think in Windows 7, or maybe a later version, this effort represented now by WinSxS, will finally be matured. You will probably see the Windows, System32, Program Files, and most other traditional folders disappear. Everything will be completely based on 'isolated components' that will have the ability to share parts of the individual components and reside in one folder, similar to WinSxS.

     

    Hopefully that will be configurable by engineers and advanced users. It'd be fantastic to see thing like this actually configurable on install so you can have a very bespoke install that works for a specific design.

     

    It's funny you mention ME though, as that was a terrible Windows release, and anyone will admit that! But I think Vista has been the one release that has received the biggest rejection from the industry and refusal to move to it. It's also been so long since the last client OS release that we're now stuck in a support quandry where people are going to be forced to Vista next year for fear of losing support on their desktops, where-as they wouldn't normally do so.

     

    I'm am waiting with baited breath for the improvements as I think they are on the right track, but it's far from a enterprise class usable OS. Which is a shame...

    Friday, July 25, 2008 8:06 AM
  •  Chris Kranz wrote:

    Hopefully that will be configurable by engineers and advanced users. It'd be fantastic to see thing like this actually configurable on install so you can have a very bespoke install that works for a specific design.

     

    I agree, it's going to be exciting to see how this all comes together.

     

    It's funny you mention ME though, as that was a terrible Windows release, and anyone will admit that! But I think Vista has been the one release that has received the biggest rejection from the industry and refusal to move to it. It's also been so long since the last client OS release that we're now stuck in a support quandry where people are going to be forced to Vista next year for fear of losing support on their desktops, where-as they wouldn't normally do so.

     

    I'm am waiting with baited breath for the improvements as I think they are on the right track, but it's far from a enterprise class usable OS. Which is a shame...

     

    I don't like referring to that particular version of Windows either, but I just mentioned it to be accurate about the documentation of the side-by-side effort.

     

    As far as the rejection of Vista is concerned, there are many enterprise level companies and individual users that have migrated to Vista and are happily using this OS, without any major problems.



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Friday, July 25, 2008 7:30 PM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

    As far as the rejection of Vista is concerned, there are many enterprise level companies and individual users that have migrated to Vista and are happily using this OS, without any major problems.

     

    I think "many" is quite a relative term! 100,000 might be "many", but in terms of Windows install base, I reckon the percentage is very poor. I'd be interested to hear what! And not just in terms of how many units have shipped with Vista, because as we all know, many many companies have then downgraded this to XP. Certainly I would be surprised to learn that anyone was using it in a thin client environment.

     

    Just my 2 cents. I am eagerly awaiting either another service pack, or Windows 7. There is some good things going on at Microsoft, it'd just be great if they were a little more mature when they hit the market, and a bit more friendly for administrators, that's my only real issue.

    Saturday, July 26, 2008 11:39 AM
  • All we need is solution to reduce Vista appetite, why I need all this garbage on my system drive?

    Why I need those movies (like dreamscene)  and game parts in Winsxs?

     

    The solution is some tool that will delete needless stuff in this folder. Who will write this tool?  

    Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:47 PM
  •  woffko wrote:

    All we need is solution to reduce Vista appetite, why I need all this garbage on my system drive?

    Why I need those movies (like dreamscene)  and game parts in Winsxs?

     

    In addition to the other components in Windows, mentioned earlier in this thread, that are replaced by the WinSxS folder, it also replaces the old 'i386' folder that was mostly seen on OEM systems that came preinstalled with previous versions of Windows. This folder contained the installation files for the base Windows installation components.

     

    The files you mentioned (Dreamscene videos) would be required, since they are part of the Dreamscene installation, if you ever needed to repair or reinstall the Dreamscene component.

     

    Another thing to consider is that the 4 default Dreamscene videos (vid1337.mpg, vid7997.mpg, vid7999.mpg, and vid8895.mpg) in the WinSxS folder are all Hard Links to the same files in the C:\Windows\Web\Windows DreamScene folder. So they are really not taking up any extra space.

     

    The solution is some tool that will delete needless stuff in this folder. Who will write this tool? 


    If you read this entire thread, you will see that a tool like this would be almost impossible to design without causing problems. There are just too many configurations and components that depend on what is contained in that folder.




    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Sunday, July 27, 2008 4:51 PM
  • Same problem, but i have an another too.
    Do you know anything about windows\softwaredistribution\download dir? It's around 4 Gb, and it has 3 1.2Gb dir, what it created/changed today. (iwas about download SP1 but after the download it failed with no space need 2 Gb...)
    Monday, July 28, 2008 5:40 PM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

    This is just my own opinion, but I think in Windows 7, or maybe a later version, this effort represented now by WinSxS, will finally be matured. You will probably see the Windows, System32, Program Files, and most other traditional folders disappear. Everything will be completely based on 'isolated components' that will have the ability to share parts of the individual components and reside in one folder, similar to WinSxS.



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Re Winsxs is that why some of my startup process start from that folder instead of System32 recently.

    Dennis

    Thursday, July 31, 2008 7:25 PM
  • Even I am facing the problem with a 10 GB WinSxS folder on a 50GB boot volume (I have a 74GB WD Raptor HDD + a 250GB WD Cavier, hence my boot volume cannot be larger). I cannot even write a dual layer Mastered DVD using Vista as I do not have enough free space left.

    The problem is not with small HDD, etc. The problem is the fact that even if you have a large HDD, say 500 GB, how much would you allocate to Vista? 100GB???? (i.e. 20%)
    In general, most laptops now have 160GB to 250GB HDD, I do not think more than 50GB is what I would allocate.

    In this scenario, if the OS consumes unexpectedly large space, we all are doomed.


     Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

    The problem, with trying to move the WinSxS folder occurs, simply because hard links cannot span volumes, so any attempt to move the WinSxS folder, to another volume, results in all of these hard links being broken.



    I guess only the post pointing to the post: http://aspoc.net/archives/2007/12/05/how-to-move-the-winsxs-directory-in-vista/ and the quoted reply of Ronnie are something constructive towards this problem. All other discussiones are mere arguments.

    Anyways, what most can see here is the fact that hardlinking is the only valid solution here.

    I would just request Ronnie to let us know that is his statement (quoted above) 100% correct? If he can verify this and also verify whether hardlinking spanning across volumes can be made possible in future (if so, by when.)?

    I say let us do something constructive, instead of yelling our throats out.

    Mr. Ronnie... you can do it! Get us the information!
    Saturday, August 02, 2008 8:33 AM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:
    The files you mentioned (Dreamscene videos) would be required, since they are part of the Dreamscene installation, if you ever needed to repair or reinstall the Dreamscene component.

    Be honest: Do you know anyone, or have you known anyone, who EVER looked at these videos, who really uses this Dreamscene thing? I sure as heck don't..

    Oh and that's another thing I noticed: It's totally unclear how to get RID of the MS software you decide NOT to use. We're in 2008 now, yet MS isn't capable of deleting icons from their control panels, deleting Windows software that is NEVER going to be used and just sits there on millions, billions of hardrives doing nothing but sit there because Vista can't offer a decent uninstaller for its own fud.


    Did anyone post at least one solution to trim down the space yet?

    From within an Administrator account open the command prompt (cmd). Go to Start – All Programs – Accessories and right click on Command Prompt and select Run as administrator.

    Use the following commands to check the status (how much space winsxs actually uses).
    Behind the prompt ( C:\Users\Administrator> or similar ), type:

    vssadmin list shadows

    and

    vssadmin list shadowstorage



    Then to trim it down so it doesn't grow as large:

    vssadmin resize shadowstorage /for=C: /on=C: /MaxSize=4GB

    4GB is large enough for most Vista users. You can also apply this to other shadow copies on other disks.
    Note that the original values will be back if you stop and start System restore.

    By the way, you need to have two services running for vssadmin to work:

    - http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/Services/Microsoft_Software_Shadow_Copy_Provider.htm
    - http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/Services/Volume_Shadow_Copy.htm

    Hope this helps somebody out..
    Sunday, August 03, 2008 2:01 PM
  •  Shamasis_Bhattacharya_7cf81e wrote:
    Even I am facing the problem with a 10 GB WinSxS folder on a 50GB boot volume (I have a 74GB WD Raptor HDD + a 250GB WD Cavier, hence my boot volume cannot be larger). I cannot even write a dual layer Mastered DVD using Vista as I do not have enough free space left.

    The problem is not with small HDD, etc. The problem is the fact that even if you have a large HDD, say 500 GB, how much would you allocate to Vista? 100GB???? (i.e. 20%)
    In general, most laptops now have 160GB to 250GB HDD, I do not think more than 50GB is what I would allocate.

    In this scenario, if the OS consumes unexpectedly large space, we all are doomed.

     

    The problem is that you seem to be assuming that the WinSxS folder will just keep growing, larger and larger, until it fills the entire hard drive?

     

    I maintain a Vista Ultimate installation that was first installed in November 2006, as soon as the RTM version was first released. This installation is on a 60GB partition. The current size of the Vista volume is 22.7GB. It varies between 22GB and 30GB, depending on how many System Restore points and other temporary files are on the system. When it gets close to 30GB, I use Disk Cleanup to delete all of the temp files and all but the latest SR points. This takes it back down to around 22GB.

     

    The WinSxS folder has been as large as 7.6GB, which was immediately after installing SP1. Using the SP1 cleanup tool took it back down to it's current size of 6.3GB.

     

    This is after 20 Months of having Vista installed.

     

    Believe me, this system has had a 'huge' amount of software and hardware installed, uninstalled and tweaked just about every way it can be tweaked.

     Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

    The problem, with trying to move the WinSxS folder occurs, simply because hard links cannot span volumes, so any attempt to move the WinSxS folder, to another volume, results in all of these hard links being broken.


    I guess only the post pointing to the post: http://aspoc.net/archives/2007/12/05/how-to-move-the-winsxs-directory-in-vista/ and the quoted reply of Ronnie are something constructive towards this problem. All other discussiones are mere arguments.

     

    You 'MUST' look at the original source of that article first.

     

    There are several blogs that have posted this information, since last December. The problem is that they only extracted and posted the small part of the original article that referred to moving the WinSxS folder.

     

    The original article was written as a guide for installing Vista on an 'Asus Eee PC' which is a mobile, subnotebook computer with a VERY small SSD hard drive.

     

    ASUS Eee PC - Wikipedia: 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASUS_Eee_PC

     

    This article included many more pre-requisite steps, including using vLite to remove most of the standard components from the full Vista installation.

     

    Please read the original article and the full thread before you try this.

     

    Here is the original source article.

     

    Installing Vista on the Eee - i've done it and it works:
    http://www.modaco.com/content/asus-eee-pc-http-www-eeeasy-com/261965/installing-vista-on-the-eee-ive-done-it-and-it-works/

     

    The really troubling thing about this is that there has not been any real documentation as to the long term 'results' of this procedure.



    Anyways, what most can see here is the fact that hardlinking is the only valid solution here.

    I would just request Ronnie to let us know that is his statement (quoted above) 100% correct? If he can verify this and also verify whether hardlinking spanning across volumes can be made possible in future (if so, by when.)?

     

    At this point, there still isn't a documented way to move or weed out any particular folders/files from the WinSxS folder.

     

    I urge everyone to follow my earlier advice on Hard Links. This will enable you to see the extent that these are used in Vista. Here it is again. The amount of hard links in Vista will boggle your mind.

     

    If you want to see this, go to the following website, read the documentation, and download/install the utility at the bottom of the page. It is very stable and can be easily uninstalled, if you wish.

     

    Link Shell Extension:
    http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/hardlinkshellext.html

     

    It has taken me many months of research to find all of the informattion on the WinSxS folder and it's many purposes.

     


    I say let us do something constructive, instead of yelling our throats out.

    Mr. Ronnie... you can do it! Get us the information!

     

    Like I said before there is 'no' information about a 'non-destructive' way of moving that folder, yet. If something does appear, I will post the information immediately.

     

    It's not my intention to appear condescending or arrogant, my reason for posting on these forums is to provide 'support' for folks who have issues when using Microsoft products. The 'last' thing that I will do is recommend anything for those users with an untested, undocumanted, procedure that has the potential to wreak havoc or even destroy their operating system.

     

    We have already seen the results of users following bad advice and changing ownership, permissions, and then deleting some assemblies and files from the folder in question here. Helping them recover can be a real can of worms.

     


    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:54 PM
  • So say we all!

    Thanks Ronnie. I agree to your concerns and to the fact that the present scenario is helpless.

    The problem is that you seem to be assuming that the WinSxS folder will just keep growing, larger and larger, until it fills the entire hard drive?


    No, I do understand that Vista is programmed to maintain itself and in due time, the space consumption will go down.
    But, my worries lie with the fact that there are many ocassions when users need temporary space on the primary HDD: say when recording DL DVD, or say copying a large archive from DVD to Desktop, downloading large file to desktop, etc. These situations can well consume above 10GB space temporarily. Hence, 22GB vista + 4GB Swapfile + 4GB hiberfile + 10GB temp = 40GB + system restore VSS may well catapult the space consumption above 50GB.
    Also note that if I chose to install some large applications on this volume, things will get worse (as it has happend in my case.)

    Here, as a user of multiple PCs at home, I do not want to spend time unnecessarily cleaning System Restore, do Disk Cleanup, etc every week. Now, do I have a point?

    Many may appear to be simply complainiing, I have myself graduated in computer engineering and I feel that the need to reduce Vista's "operating space" consumption should be conveyed to the core development team.

    The original article was written as a guide for installing Vista on an 'Asus Eee PC' which is a mobile, subnotebook computer with a VERY small SSD hard drive


    Thanks for pointing this out Ronnie. In fact, I wouldn't have followed these steps until you conveyed your thought on the hardlinking issue.

    By the way, what if we somehow empty the winsxs folder (hypothetically) and then can we mount an NTFS volume (say of 15GB) to it?
    Also, isn't there ways (by scavenging the registry) to find which assemblies are required and what is redundant? If so, like many registry cleaner softwares do, we can find the useless assemblies in winsxs folder.

    And trust me, I do not think you are either arrogant or condescending. I can very well understand your standpoint and that anything said here can be taken as precedent with many users trying it and ultimately breaking their systems.
    Monday, August 04, 2008 10:14 AM
  •  Shamasis_Bhattacharya_7cf81e wrote:
    So say we all!

    Thanks Ronnie. I agree to your concerns and to the fact that the present scenario is helpless.

     

    Shamasis

     

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

     

    This is another long post.

     


    No, I do understand that Vista is programmed to maintain itself and in due time, the space consumption will go down.
    But, my worries lie with the fact that there are many ocassions when users need temporary space on the primary HDD: say when recording DL

    DVD, or say copying a large archive from DVD to Desktop, downloading large file to desktop, etc. These situations can well consume above 10GB

    space temporarily. Hence, 22GB vista + 4GB Swapfile + 4GB hiberfile + 10GB temp = 40GB + system restore VSS may well catapult the space

    consumption above 50GB.
    Also note that if I chose to install some large applications on this volume, things will get worse (as it has happend in my case.)

     

    I do understand the problem. But there are alternate options to reduce used disk space, besides the system folders.

     

    Some of the scenarios that I have tested for freeing up system volume space include using Symbolic Links and Junctions to redirect the location of temporary folders to either an external HDD or a separate partition. Unlike Hard Links, Symbolic Links and Junctions have the capability to span volumes.

     

    I have successfully redirected output to temporary folders with a variety of CD/DVD recording/cloning programs

    and other programs that create and/or maintain large data files.Of course the Swapfile can easily be moved to a separate partition or drive.

     

    You are probably familiar with symbolic links and junctions since these are already used, extensively, in Vista to redirect legacy installation programs that are hard coded look for the default folders that existed in previous versions of Windows, but have been changed in Vista. Some of these are 'Documents and Settings, Application Data, All Users, etc.

     

    Svrops.com - Windows Vista Junction Points:
    http://svrops.com/svrops/articles/jpoints.htm

     

    Vista includes the command line utility  'mklink' to create symbolic links, junctions, and hard links. If you look at the utility to reveal and enumerate hard links in Vista, that I referred to in my last post (Link Shell Extension), this utility also includes the capability to create symbolic links, junctions and hard links with the ease of a simple 'drag and drop'feature.

     

    Link Shell Extension:
    http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/hardlinkshellext.html

     

    In addition, there are built-in options for moving some folders, such as the User folders, that can consume a large amount of disk space, over time.



    Here, as a user of multiple PCs at home, I do not want to spend time unnecessarily cleaning System Restore, do Disk Cleanup, etc every week.

    Now, do I have a point?

     

    Yes, good point, however in the past, keeping the system volume clean and optimized by using the built-in utilities was 'a good idea', in Vista it's 'absolutely mandatory'. Just one example is the System Restore component. In Windows XP, the default size for this component was set at 12% of the system volume. In Vista, it is set at 15% of the entire system volume or 30% of the free disk space.

     

    The above post by Jultus details how this can be easily changed to a much lower, fixed amount, of the system volume space. Like he said, setting system restore to a maximum of 4GB gives you plenty of space for system restore that includes the previous versions feature and other Volume Shadow Copy functions. When you talk about 'runaway, space eating components' in Vista, System Restore has got to be number one on that list.

     


    Many may appear to be simply complainiing, I have myself graduated in computer engineering and I feel that the need to reduce Vista's "operating space" consumption should be conveyed to the core development team.

     

    Trust me, 'all' of the different individuals who make up the development teams at Microsoft are painfully aware of this issue. However, they must look at a much larger picture than a typical user looks at. They must take into account the legacy compatibility issues, as well as the future architecture of Windows. 

     


    The original article was written as a guide for installing Vista on an 'Asus Eee PC' which is a mobile, subnotebook computer with a VERY small SSD hard drive.

    Thanks for pointing this out Ronnie. In fact, I wouldn't have followed these steps until you conveyed your thought on the hardlinking issue.

     

    I do understand that you have enough knowledge to not try undocumented procedures without thoroughly testing them first, on a non-critical system, but the less knowledgeable users who read the information here must be made well aware of the repercussions of blindly following these undocumented procedures. This is the reason why I am still posting to this thread.

     


    By the way, what if we somehow empty the winsxs folder (hypothetically) and then can we mount an NTFS volume (say of 15GB) to it?
    Also, isn't there ways (by scavenging the registry) to find which assemblies are required and what is redundant? If so, like many registry cleaner softwares do, we can find the useless assemblies in winsxs folder.

     

    Here are just a few items of concern with this approach.

     

    You would need the ability to predict future need?

     

    Even unused assemblies and files may be needed by the software program that a user installs tomorrow. The native assembly cache (just one component of WinSxS), that is part of the default installation for Vista, is the subject of SDK documentation that defines the shared assemblies in that folder which a software developer can bind to by simply including a manifest in their program that calls the shared assembly.

     

    This does not even take into account what happens when a Windows component must be repaired, installed, uninstalled, or reinstalled and the files in the assemblies that it needs have been removed?

     

    Other components, such as the SFC (System File Checker) replaces corrupted, critical system files from the WinSxS\Backup folder, when you run the SFC SCANNOW command. If the file in this folder is found to also be corrupted then SFC goes to the copy of the file that resides in the assemblies.

     

    When you go to Control Panel\Programs and Features and select 'Turn windows features on or off' these components are installed directly from the WinSxS folder.

     

    CSI (Component Servicing Infrastructure) - Works at the deployment/component level.

     

    "CSI  is responsible for the actual installation of components.  To install components, CSI utilizes the Component Store (the %windir%\WinSXS folder) which is a collection of all components, manifests (%windir%\WinSXS\Manifests) and files on the system."

     

    Ask the Performance Team : Understanding Component-Based Servicing:
    http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2008/04/23/understanding-component-based-servicing.aspx

     

    Also, Windows Update focuses directly on the components and files contained in the WinSxS folder when installing updates, hotfixes, and servicing other system files. 

     

    One example is here:
    Stop error when you try to download updates from Windows Update on a computer that is running Windows Vista: "0x80070246":
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942968

     


    And trust me, I do not think you are either arrogant or condescending. I can very well understand your standpoint and that anything said here

    can be taken as precedent with many users trying it and ultimately breaking their systems.

     

    Thank You.

     

    Hope this helps.


     

    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Monday, August 04, 2008 9:50 PM
  • Ronnie, I guess you have solved my prroblem to some extent. Perhaps you have solved many other's problem to some xtent as well. I will use SymLinks to shift the temp folders!

    Thank you for your effort and concerns
    Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:51 AM
  • Hallo Ronnie,

     

    in the last two days i read all the entries in this forum.

    That's why i did'nt understood why the winsxs so large is.

    I say Thanks to you for the time you spend to (try to) explain us why it is so.

     

    I installed my Vista Business in November 2006, on a 80 GB HDD, two partitions (system on a 50GB and data on the rest), upgrade to SP1, a very large amount of programs and tools: the "vista partition" occupe 33GB! I can't recognize any problem in the 8GB of the winsxs...

     

    I remember that MS-DOS started from a 5,4" disk on PC without a HDD!!!

     

    My new Notebook is one week old. It is very performant, with 4GB RAM, Dual Core Centrino, etc....

    And i will install a 500GB HDD in there.

     

    All my old PC will remain on XP. Why i have to do all this trouble!?

     

    The only serious and helpful replies are yours, Ronnie.

    All others, you can forget it...

     

    Sorry for my bad english...

     

    Franco

     

     

    Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:15 PM
  • Shamasis

     

    Your very welcome.

     

    I'm glad this helped.

     

    Regards,

     




    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:57 PM
  • Franco

     

    Thank you for the kind words, I'm glad this information helped you.

     

    Your English is very good. 

     

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:01 PM
  • This is bad ! Me and Ronnie did the last bit of organized discussion and no credits to me!!!!!!

    LOLZ! Just kidding!

    Ronnie, I would be glad if you can post some tips to move the entire "c:\Users" folder as a symlink or a junction to another volume. I am stuck and found no proper help.
    Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:47 PM
  • Shamasis

     

    Moving the entire 'Users' folder is more difficult. The best way to do this is during the initial installation of Vista using the WAIK and an unattended.xml file.

     

    Here is a very good discussion on this subject.

     

    Move \Users folder once for all - Vista Setup and Install:
    http://forums.techarena.in/vista-setup-install/620001.htm

     


     


    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:47 PM
  • Oh please, If I would apply this policy to buying a car I would have a lawn full; let's keep the old one if the new one breaks down, right back to My First Car?

     

    I have a state of the art laptop with a 6,5 Gb WinSXS folder on 20Gb partition(I've hung on to my XP installation for keeps). Windows Vista is like your stereotype mom who can't throw anything away ending up with a garage full of stuff which COULD be usefull in events not likely to EVER happen.

    Friday, August 08, 2008 9:25 AM
  •  AltControl wrote:

    Oh please, If I would apply this policy to buying a car I would have a lawn full; let's keep the old one if the new one breaks down, right back to My First Car?

     

    That's really funny, because I remember that same statement being posted many times, referring to XP, 98, and all the way back to 95.

     

    I have a state of the art laptop with a 6,5 Gb WinSXS folder on 20Gb partition

     

    That's great for you, but most people do not have a state of the art system. Support for legacy apps  and hardware (backward compatibility) has always been the most consistent, number one, demand from Windows users. Would you have been happier if you could not run any of your older software on Vista?

     

    (I've hung on to my XP installation for keeps). Windows Vista is like your stereotype mom who can't throw anything away ending up with a garage full of stuff which COULD be usefull in events not likely to EVER happen.

     

    Ha! Is that an oxymoron?

     

    The only mistake you made with that state of the art system is that you allocated a partition that is 'half' of the 'recommended' size for Vista.



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Friday, August 08, 2008 5:14 PM
  • I appreciate the warning, but it's still preposterous that there is no tool to safely manage this folder.  How many versions of past DLLs can we reasonably need?   Are we to accept that the winsxs folder will continue to eat up more and more of our hard drives until we have to replace them?

    Why does MS want us to force us to replace our hard drives?    You don't sell hard drives, you sell software.
    Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:08 AM
  •  Pithecanthropus wrote:
    I appreciate the warning, but it's still preposterous that there is no tool to safely manage this folder.  How many versions of past DLLs can we reasonably need?   Are we to accept that the winsxs folder will continue to eat up more and more of our hard drives until we have to replace them?

     

    Why does MS want us to force us to replace our hard drives?

     

    Hi

     

    You need to read this entire thread, although there is a lot of FUD, the reasons for there not being a cleanup utility like you describe is obvious.

     

    WinSxS already has it's own 'scavenging' component that deletes unecessary, or updated files and folders. The WinSxS folder will not 'just keep growing until it fills the hard drive', this has already been proven.

     

    You don't sell hard drives, you sell software.

     

    Microsoft does sell 'software' and they also sell 'Operating Systems' which is much more than just another piece of 'software'.

     

    People tend to forget that an operating system is responsible for making 'all' of the hardware and software work, it's much more than a piece of software.

     

    Regards,

     

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:22 AM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

    You need to read this entire thread, although there is a lot of FUD, the reasons for there not being a cleanup utility like you describe is obvious.

     

    WinSxS already has it's own 'scavenging' component that deletes unecessary, or updated files and folders. The WinSxS folder will not 'just keep growing until it fills the hard drive', this has already been proven.

     

    Hi there! I was searching for a fix for my own issue and ended up on this thread...

    I DID go through all 7 pages... not all the links you provided however i didnt have time for that much! Wink

    Is there however a way that m "scavenger" is broken or something? Because as of now, it DID eat up all the space of my hard drive!! hehe... Here are my stats... have a look i am seriously confused!!

    C: Partition : 30gb (28 after partitioning loss)

    ALL the folder and system files of the whole C: hard drive. *includes program files, office, anti-virus, softwares and the USER folder*... only folder NOT in this calculation is the windows folder
    Exactly  :  19835 files, 3.61GBs

    Windows folder (including the winsxs folder) : 81000 files, 23.5GB!

    WINSXS folder : 54353 files, 16.1GBs!!!!!

    i now have 641mb free on the C:\ drive.... I went through my program files and out of the 3gb there are not that much i can delete... there is DEFINITIVELY something wrong with my winsxs folder... and i didnt install too much softwares... i have around 10-12 differents programs installed.. winrar, avast, clonedvd, utorrent, office, video codec package... 3 or 4 games on another partition.... pretty standard computer....

    Any idea or suggestion? although probably not... beside formatting C: and starting a new... the computer is pretty new itself... i built it around 5 months ago... brand new vista ult. installation too...

    anything i can shut down?? i checked that shadowcopy thing in cmd promp... there is 70mb used out of 300 that are availlable.... (default settings i never touched it before)...

    anything else? Smile

    Thx for your time!!

    Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:06 AM
  • I recently reinstalled Windows Vista Ultimate x64 on my gaming pc. I have a WD Raptor X with 3 partitions - 14.9 GB for the system, 4.73 GB for paging and 114 for programs. I have only 4 games and 17 drivers/utilities installed. The Winsxs folder went to 9 GB after just one month of use.

     

    Running vsp1cln.exe helped me reclaim 2.4 GB by removing all the older Vista files.

    Sunday, August 17, 2008 6:52 AM
  • the concept of the winsxs folder does not bother me...but i would like to see the location of it configurable.  if it is intended as a "backup", then i would like to have it on an external usb drive or something, in order to keep my system drive space minimized.  is it possible to tell vista to store my winsxs data to an alternate location?  i dont know if thats feasable if/when the alternate location is disconnected/unavailable however...

     

    Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:01 PM
  • Maybe it could be possible... although since it is a windows system folder it would be way too much hassle...

    as for a removable drive, most probably not... for the reason you said in your post... if the alternate location is unavaillable then the system will crash or will not boot at all...

    I found the sp1-cleanup utility that has been talked a bit in this thread i think.. and it did clean up around 3GB on our C: drive... so now we do not save anything on the C: and wait to see if winsxs will keep growing and eat up any space left! Smile

    I do however hope to see some kind of fix/patch because if you look 3 posts up my winsxs folder takes up WAY much space than is intended... and its not like I have tons of stuff installed on that computer... its a kitchen computer and is pretty empty!! Smile

     

    Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:31 PM
  • I am sorry Ronnie, you successfully talked AROUND what I was asking without giving me any answers.

    I don't want Windows to keep the files to reinstall components on my hard drive.  That is what the CD/DVD that we installed Windows off of is for.  I don't want it to hold onto video files and audio clips and what have you.  That is all stuff that comes on the install disks of the program I am installing.  I want a way to remove ALL of the backup files "In case I need to uninstall a program" because I am an administrator who does his job PROPERLY and has stateful backups and snapshot images of all his servers and workstations.  If something goes awry during an install or uninstall, I can restore a backup, or dump an image file to the machine.  My concern is running virtual machines.  With Microsoft's less-than-optimal Virtual Machine capabilities, any virtual machine you create will take up its full allocated disk space in the Virtual Hard Disk file, even if that space is empty.  That is a HUGE waste of space, so I went with VMWare, whose VM Virtual Hard Disk file only takes up as much room as the data it contains, and dynamically grows as more data is added... the unfortunate part, is the WinSxS file on these machines gets obscenely large, and its purpose is wasted on what I do.  Instead, WinSxS makes each of my Virtual Machines take up an extra 8GB to 10GB on my NAS.  With well over 80 Virtual Machine images, I am now looking at needing nearly an extra Terrabyte of storage, which in NAS terms, means upgrading the entire shelf... because the existing 4TB shelf (which costs in the ballpark of $12,000) is inadequate... so I have to upgrade to the next size up, which is a 16TB shelf for $40,000 or more... all because of the WinSxS folder in each image.  How do you propose I cut the price down so I am not spending tens of thousands of dollars ? 

    You say NAS owners can reduce the extra cost... there should be NO extra cost.  With Windows XP, the image I use is approximately 12GB, while with Vista Business, and all the exact same applications installed, the image is nearly 23GB.  Neither have issues with compatibility, nor installing or uninstalling programs or components.  I don't care if WinSxS stays the same size, or grows.  All I care about is on a fresh install, Vista thinks it knows what is best for me and takes nearly double the space.  I am not your general home user who needs his OS to babysit his files for him. 

    This is something that needs Microsoft's attention, and you seem to prefer trying to tell us we are doing things wrong, rather than saying "I will talk to the Devs about this."  We don't need hand-holding, or patronizing comments.  We need results.  As it stands Windows costs more than double the price per seat than any other OS.  Don't make it cost us double in storage as well, when the solution is as simple as letting US decide what is best to maintain our computers' health (rather than designing something in a way that we can't do anything about it without 'breaking' the OS).
    Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:45 PM
  •  

    WOW... that was some intense posting.... i feel kinda bad for worrying about my small 30gb c: drive... hehe...

    i never tought about it from a dev/server side... as i left IT a few years ago before vista came out...

    OUCH... 16TB - 40K$.... the calculation do make sense...

    And yes microsoft should acknowledge the issue and do something about it!

    Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:35 PM
  • Ronnie,

    Thank you for clearing up the mess in this thread. I just read all posts and I have to say I admire the patience you have displayed when responding to all these posts, some even written in a threatening manner. I am shocked to see that some demand solutions and doesn't acknowledge that these are people spending time on these forums in their free time to help others.

    You made it clear the minimum recommended hard drive is 40gb and to be honest in my stupidity, when I read that, thought that it refered to the total volume of your harddrive (mine is 500gb so I thought that's alright). A friend of mine once told me that I needed no way more than 5gb for my Windows XP install. Turns out to be a big mistake to trust my friend, took some annoying work to get all my things on the other partitions on an usb drive and reformat the whole shebang. Now when I got Vista Ultimate I was resolute not to make the same mistake and with this relatively large hard drive (for me, that is) I decided to make my Windows partition
    large, ending up at a whooping 25gb big. Now a few weeks later I am sitting with 5.4gb free space on that partition and after discovering  this Winsxs folder being big I found this thread.

    I most definitely won't try to tamper with this folder. Luckily, for me, there's a partition I basically haven't touched yet which I will probably reinstall Windows to. But this one is 100gb so it will be quite extravagant to have Windows on that one alone. There should be a way to delete the Windows partition and this unused one and redistribute the space in a 40gb and a 85gb drive yes?

    I hope you can bear my long post.

    Thanks
    Sunday, August 31, 2008 3:10 PM
  • Ha ! I made my primary partition some 25 gigs also, thinking that is ought to be enough.
    And for XP was more than enough and still is.
    But if I put Vista, then there start worries! Probably I may need to repartition.
    Or maybe do this in need afterwards, if the "enlarge" option in the vista disk management works properly, without losing data on the partition to be enlarged. Does it ?

    J.Hall, you may do the same thing if this works. You move the data in the partition D near the Windows one, to another one, the 100 one for example, then using the Disk Management you shrink this D one, then expand the Windows one to the freed space.

    In this way you may no need to reinstall....

    I have to say that my last XP Sp2 installation has more than 1 year and has only 22mb in winsxs and no problems until now.
    Now yesterday I tested a vista in a virtual pc, it was ok, until I put the sp1 soon after, and then the virtual disk grow from some 5 gigs to some 10 (of course, the winsxs had a very big role in this). there was only 2-3 more apps installed, an older game and a couple of very light apps to see if they work in vista... they worked but...

    ...this winsxs is a "no-no"....
    Sunday, August 31, 2008 10:53 PM
  •  J.Hall wrote:
    Ronnie,

    Thank you for clearing up the mess in this thread. I just read all posts and I have to say I admire the patience you have displayed when responding to all these posts, some even written in a threatening manner. I am shocked to see that some demand solutions and doesn't acknowledge that these are people spending time on these forums in their free time to help others.


    Yes, I agree. Thank you for your efforts. the bickering is just wasting my time as I went through the last 7 pages. We all know that Vista is inferior to XP in many respects, but there is no need to harass the one person at MS who is trying to help with this issue.

    I of course am having this same issue and am looking for a solution.I am running a brand new quad core HP with over 1TB of disk space. I have only had this computer for a couple weeks and have been putting off ghosting the hard drive until I got some better quality DVD's. Unfortunately now the C drive already has 120GB eaten up, mostly by this folder and system restore. I have found a way to reduce the system restore folder (to 5GB), but I am still at 60 or so. I have installed a couple of programs, but none of the usual suspects (no Office suite or even antivirus programs yet). Winsxs is at 33GB, so I was trying to start there.

    So, if I can't delete this folder, does anyone have a way that I can ghost/backup this drive without wasting 14 DVD's?

    Thanks again for your patience.
    Friday, September 12, 2008 4:05 AM

  • Friday, September 12, 2008 4:06 AM
  • sorry for the double post, I got an error message on the first one and went back to try to save it.
    Friday, September 12, 2008 4:18 AM
  •  

    wow 33GB?!? thats insane... and as of page 7 I was the one with the biggest winsxs! Smile hehe...

    perhaps someday we'll see an update popup that will fix it without anyone knowing about it...  then again... maybe not...

    I agree that if you wish to backup or ghost the C: drive it can really be a pain because of that...

    as for the other one before stating "it is a fact that Vista is inferior to XP"... well "maybe its a fact" but it shoudnt be!!!!!

    God people pay 600$ for that damn piece of software! it just makes no sense that it has so many flaws!!!

    I work in the video game industry... and even here they've started to deliver unfinished products to save money and time!

    Where in the world has the quality gone to?!? F***ing Sh**!!!!  Wink sorry... i did censor myself.. but im just overwhelmed...

     

    Have a nice day and a Great weekend! Smile

    Friday, September 12, 2008 12:05 PM
  • u could use vlite to remove langs that u wont ever use and printers drivers

    and save around 2-4 giga and remove few videos and audio u wont use either

    and the os stability wont changed

    its not a lot but something

    btw if u have spare
    product key to server 2008 u could use it as workstation
    its would be better

    im running it with 5.5giga for 64bit version which is nice

    Friday, September 12, 2008 12:49 PM
  • Whoopi

     

    Just for clarification.

     

    33GB seems extraordinarily large for a WinSxS folder? If the entire Vista installation is 60GB, this would mean the WinSxS folder is taking up over half of the installation?

     

    How are you checking the size.

     

    If you right click the WinSxS folder and select the General Tab, does it show 33GB there, as the size on disk?

     

    Also, is this the 64bit version of Vista.

     

    Let me know.

     

     


    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Friday, September 12, 2008 10:05 PM
  • Two thoughts on the issue:

     

    Many people follow the "advice" to turn off every service and every scheduled process they don't immediately understand. This, of course, always bears the risk that they involuntary disable important stuff like the WinSxS scavenger. Anybody thought of that?

     

    And another thing: I wonder how the explorer counts the size of a directory. It seems to me that it always counts the size of all files, whether they are hard linked from multiple locations or not.

     

    Thereby you get an incorrect directory size! All the hard linked files are counted multiple times if you look at the properties of WinSxS and those from other Windows system directories like system32.

     

    Only the overall space occupied on the whole volume minus "Program Files", "Users" and "ProgramData" can give you an idea how much storage space the Windows installation actually takes.

     

    Sunday, September 14, 2008 9:58 AM
  • I jsut installed Vista x64, and my Winsxs folder is about 30 GB as well. Clean install. Updates only. This blows. There has to be a way to reduce the size of this folder.

     

    And I remember the days of "No one will ever need more than 64K of RAM" There's got to be a way to make the blooming program more efficient.

     

    I guess I'm going back to Server 2008.

    Monday, September 15, 2008 2:23 AM
  •  Xerloq wrote:

    I jsut installed Vista x64, and my Winsxs folder is about 30 GB as well. Clean install. Updates only. This blows. There has to be a way to reduce the size of this folder.

     

    That's extremely unlikely, if not impossible. Not with a clean install.

     

    Why do you think that Server 2008 would be any different, btw?

    Monday, September 15, 2008 5:25 AM
  • I jsut installed Vista x64, and my Winsxs folder is about 30 GB as well. Clean install. Updates only. This blows. There has to be a way to reduce the size of this folder.

     

    Xerloq

     

    How are you determining the size of the WinSxS folder?

     

    I have installed many, many Vista x64 systems and I have yet to see one with more than 8.7GB on a default installation?

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Monday, September 15, 2008 5:54 AM
  • on a very fresh install, the winsxs folder on home premium si a bit more than the one in business. why ? it has to do with installed apps that come only with that version, or it is specifically more prepared for other possible future apps to be installed on that version like games ?

    I didnd get if winsxs is related only to existing or past installed apps on that machine or is also prepared for various other apps that might be installed later.

    Also, what is the correct way to determine size ?
    For example, the used size shown for drive C (properties) is smaller than if i sellect all files/folders in root (including system and hidden) , both for business and home premium, both in virtual machines. it may have to do with the virtual hdds... or not.
    Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:16 PM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:



     

    People tend to forget that an operating system is responsible for making 'all' of the hardware and software work, it's much more than a piece of software.

     

    Regards,

     

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience



    I believe people are quite aware that Windows is an OS and it's also 'Software."  Vista needing to take up enormous amounts of unnecessary disk space (ie. WinSXS) is ridiculous. VISTA does NOT need over 6GB of drivers to properly function... if it does it's BROKEN and needs to be fixed.

    Microsoft has taken a LARGE step backwards from Windows XP. At least a normal user can reduce their entire Operating System down to a mere 3-4gb, if not less AND Windows XP is frankly faster and less of a resource hog.
    Sunday, September 21, 2008 7:22 PM
  •  whistl3r wrote:
    Microsoft has taken a LARGE step backwards from Windows XP. At least a normal user can reduce their entire Operating System down to a mere 3-4gb, if not less AND Windows XP is frankly faster and less of a resource hog.

     

    So?

     

    Win98 can be installed on a partition < 1GB, it uses less resources than XP. Is that a reason to install Win98? I think not.

     

    Yes, Vista takes more space and resources than XP. Who cares? If your machine can't handle that, stick with XP. Mine can handle it and I'd rather use those resources for a more robust and usefull OS - especially since XP doesn't feel faster than Vista at all, quite the contrary.

    Monday, September 22, 2008 8:40 AM
  • I think that a 'middle' solution would be an advanced option only for admins, to enable a 'win xp' behaviour for winsxs.
    This would be feasible for those that know what they are doing.
    I dont know if this actually would be easy to implement programatically.
    Monday, September 22, 2008 8:54 AM
  • Hey all

    As a user of windows since DOS and 3.1, i have never seen a backup system so aggressive and destructive, my simple question is: why not make a way of turning such an invasive 'tool' off? The rule is for almost every new feature of any updated product, in this case Vista, is for it to be turned off if you dont like it. Microsoft has kindly done this for the memory hog features such as superfetch and even the windows search indexer, which are both reasonably useful with systems with more RAM.

    - Ronnie, I value your knowlege in the winsxs debate, as it has now become, and nobody (I hope) is suggesting YOU have the power to change already intergrated OS code, and fix everything for everyone. But certainly you can see why people might get a little annoyed when their problem isnt solved, and instead they are delivered explanations as to why they should accept it, pay for money for a new hard drive, or reinstall their operating system. I would love it if i could shout at someone and everything would get fixed, but thats not how things work. I have researched this topic, and not to mention Vista, as i do with every new Microsoft OS before purchase, winsxs is a marvelous invention for anyone who encounters "DLL ***" as previously described. But for the majority of users, including me, DLL *** is folklore and doesnt happen unless you never reinstall your operating system, which i must admit is now difficult and near impossible for Vista. For all out there who dont understand, this feature is very important, it practically extends the operating systems life indefinitely. Anything besides a hardware failure will not phase Vista, a tremendous update on the trigger happy XP, which was prone to shooting its own limbs off when it got old. You would be forgiven by thinking 'Reinstallation is difficult, windows side by side means you dont have to.... but it comes at a cost, like a hastily thrown in hot-fix' - essentially, Vista dug itself a Catch 22 hole here, but it makes for a more stable system.. The trick here, is to either not use Vista or put up with it and wait for an fix that will probably never come (Officially). It is NOT recommened to stuff around with the winsxs folder, but if its getting out of control, god speed and be careful, it CAN be done if you are very very careful. But please dont yell at support staff or anyone who tries to help.

     

    Sorry for the rant, hope it helps somehow.

     

    Cheers

    Praab

    Monday, September 22, 2008 9:19 AM
  •  Praab NZ wrote:

    As a user of windows since DOS and 3.1, i have never seen a backup system so aggressive and destructive

     

    It is not a backup system. It's a technique to ensure that older and newer software can coexist on the same machine, even though they're using different versions of some global resources (like DLLs, controls etc.).

     

    In the past you could break an application just by installing another app, just because the second application installed a newer version of some global resource and the first app wasn't working with that newer version.

     

    Using shared global resources sounded like a good idea at some time, but nobody foresaw the potential problems these would cause later. Especially since these resources were developed in a completely uncontrolled matter, and nobody really ensured that later versions of such a resource really worked well with all older software that used it.

     

    So, yes, it's a problem MS introduced when they advocated to use system wide DLLs, controls etc. Now they have to cope with the problems that this caused in the long run.  

    Monday, September 22, 2008 10:41 AM
  • So, my Sxs folder is 10GB (9.99 to be exact)...pretty silly.

    How do I ensure that this so-called "scavenging" service is indeed running?

    Thanks.

    Vista Ultimate x64
    160GB 7200
    4GB RAM
    T7300 C2D
    Monday, September 22, 2008 6:28 PM
  •  Meetloaf wrote:
    So, my Sxs folder is 10GB (9.99 to be exact)...pretty silly.

    How do I ensure that this so-called "scavenging" service is indeed running?

    Thanks.

    Vista Ultimate x64
    160GB 7200
    4GB RAM
    T7300 C2D

     

    Hi

     

    The easiest way to determine if the Scavenging process is working, is by monitoring the Pending Deletes folder.

    C:\Windows\winsxs\Temp\PendingDeletes.

     

    When Windows Update or the Trusted Installer replaces a file in WinSxS, the replaced file will be moved to this folder for deletion. The files are kept in the folder until the Scavenging component removes them.

     

    FYI, The WinSxS folder on the 64bit version of Vista will usually be anywhere from 1.5 to 2GB larger than it is on the 32bit version simply because of the extra 32bit compatibility files that are required.

     

    Hope this helps.


     


    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Monday, September 22, 2008 8:05 PM
  • I have 3 files in there that indicate that they were created in 2006.  This copy of Vista was installed back in May of 2008.  So, do I need to 'monitor' meaning I need to check it every so often (after updates?) to see if new stuff shows up, or do you think it truly is off, b/c the files that are there are from the installation.

    P.S.  I disabled minimal amount of services when I installed...but, if I disabled the wrong one... =]

    Thanks!
    Monday, September 22, 2008 9:56 PM
  •  Meetloaf wrote:
    I have 3 files in there that indicate that they were created in 2006.  This copy of Vista was installed back in May of 2008.  So, do I need to 'monitor' meaning I need to check it every so often (after updates?) to see if new stuff shows up, or do you think it truly is off, b/c the files that are there are from the installation.

    P.S.  I disabled minimal amount of services when I installed...but, if I disabled the wrong one... =]

    Thanks!

     

    Hi

     

    You cannot get any useful information about the scavenging process by checking a files properties that is contained in the PendingDeletes folder. The only thing this reveals is that particular files history, such as, when the file was created or modified on the system before being moved to that folder. 

     

    What you're looking for is 'activity' such as, files being removed or added. This will not happen very often, since by neccessity, it is a complex process.

     

    The scavenging process is integrated, it is not independent and does not depend on any services, other than the services that the Component Store (WinSxS) depends on such as the Trusted Installer (Windows Modules Installer), Windows Installer, Windows Update, etc. If you are able to install / remove updates and other applications, then you can assume that it is all working OK.

     

    You will not see an abrupt decrease in the size of the WinSxS folder, unless it is a situation where Service Pack 1 has been installed. Even then, this will be the result of the user running the cleanup tool that is included in the SP1 installation.

     

    Hope this helps.


    If this post helps to resolve your issue, click the Mark as Answer or Helpful button at the top of this message.
    By marking a post as Answered, or Helpful you help others find the answer faster.

    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Monday, September 22, 2008 11:57 PM
  • Hi

     

    For those reading this thread, you will be interested in a recent post on the Windows Server Core Team Blog.

     

    This article is about the best description I have seen, from Microsoft, about the Winsxs folder and it's role in the Vista operating system.

     

    What is the WINSXS directory in Windows 2008 and Windows Vista and why is it so large?:
    http://blogs.technet.com/askcore/archive/2008/09/17/what-is-the-winsxs-directory-in-windows-2008-and-windows-vista-and-why-is-it-so-large.aspx

     

    Also be sure to take a look at the article by MVP Anand Khanse, (aka HappyAndyK).

    He updated this article to graphically show how the different files types are distributed throughout the Winsxs folder.

     

    The Secret Of Vista's Winsxs Folder:
    http://www.winvistaclub.com/f16.html

     

    Hope this helps.

     


    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:07 AM
  •  Grestorn wrote:
     Praab NZ wrote:

    As a user of windows since DOS and 3.1, i have never seen a backup system so aggressive and destructive

     

    It is not a backup system. It's a technique to ensure that older and newer software can coexist on the same machine, even though they're using different versions of some global resources (like DLLs, controls etc.).

     

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup

    Read the first line

    Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:17 AM
  •  Praab NZ wrote:
     Grestorn wrote:
     Praab NZ wrote:

    As a user of windows since DOS and 3.1, i have never seen a backup system so aggressive and destructive

     

    It is not a backup system. It's a technique to ensure that older and newer software can coexist on the same machine, even though they're using different versions of some global resources (like DLLs, controls etc.).

     

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup

    Read the first line

     

    Yes, well, this description doesn't match the purpose of WinSxS at all. Believe me, I know perfectly well what a backup is for and I have a pretty good idea what WinSxS is for.

    Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:00 AM
  • Ronnie,

    First time vistor to this forum.  I am 61 years old and been in the business since ... forever.  You ARE a saint.  I've read every post.  I can understand the rage.  But I'm not sure I can understand your patience  .  I have finally given in to moving to Vista.  First looks.. I like it (I think).  But the gripes that are contained here are VERY real.  My WinSxS folder is just under 6 Gig and tolerable (barely).  I know that you said it would not grow uncontrollably.  That means that somewhere Vista is making decisions.  Or is this cleanup mechanism only invoked at Windows Update time (and God knows there's enough of those).  Is there a threshhold that is set at any point to relegate a dll or assemly to the 'pending deleted' folder?  If so, would a solution be simply to make that threshhold programmable (to a limit)?   I know that is a verey 'simple minded' statement.  But something is controlling when Vista has decided it no longer needs certain stuff.   Anyway, thanks for any insight you can give me.

     

     

    Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:05 PM
  • How can you even compare Win98 and XP, completely irrelevant debate. Windows XP is far superior than what Windows 98 and Windows ME had ever been. It's also been the most successful Microsoft Operating system... Vista on the other hand is all but Microsoft force feeding their customers a load of ***, even from the first day of it's release.... having OEM retailers forcing their consumers to purchase Vista and they had no option, but to. Those computers these OEM retailers were selling could barely even run Vista!

    Explain this... XP to Windows Server 2008 is much less of a resource hog than Vista. ***, Microsoft should be selling Windows Server 2008 to it's Home based customers.


    Vista is absurdly a resource hog. The issue here is not about how well it runs on someones system, it's about Winsxs utilizing an inefficient amount of disk space.

    Currently my Winsxs folder is 6.53GB and growing, others have far greater! For what exactly? Something that I'm going to install in the near future? The whole point of having to install the OS from a medium is that the drivers will be available on that same installation CD if they were needed to function appropriately.

    There is not a single being on this planet that needs to have drivers/software in the Winsxs folder for an application they will never see or even use, and yet Microsoft introduces this absurd idea, which takes up their customers valuable hard drive real-estate. If I'm going to be installing 3rd party software, after installing Vista, that may have compatibility issues, the Vista installer should prompt the user displaying a list of applications Vista will install compatibility checks for. NOT install cab files for every single piece of popular software/driver that's freely available on the market.

    To humor your "can my machine handle vista" theory, I've a $8,000 custom built system dual xeon sli config and over 6TB of storage, my OS and Applications run from a 74GB array (separate drives) and that space is not real-estate for a Winsxs folder which will continue to grow with unnecessary junk, the array is meant to speed up my applications performance and CAD, not some bogus uneeded drivers I'll never use. As noted previously it's not about how the system runs, it's about taking up unessential disk space. Windows XP I've never in my life, even in a large Corporate environment been subjected to DLL ***, even building our own images.
    Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:37 PM
  •  whistl3r wrote:
    How can you even compare Win98 and XP, completely irrelevant debate. Windows XP is far superior than what Windows 98 and Windows ME had ever been. It's also been the most successful Microsoft Operating system... Vista on the other hand is all but Microsoft force feeding their customers a load of ***, even from the first day of it's release.... having OEM retailers forcing their consumers to purchase Vista and they had no option, but to. Those computers these OEM retailers were selling could barely even run Vista!

     

    Funny, you can go back and find this exact same description and complaints about XP being pre-installed and forced down our throats on OEM computers back in 2001/2002.


    Explain this... XP to Windows Server 2008 is much less of a resource hog than Vista. ***, Microsoft should be selling Windows Server 2008 to it's Home based customers.

    Vista is absurdly a resource hog. The issue here is not about how well it runs on someones system, it's about Winsxs utilizing an inefficient amount of disk space.

     

    You'll find the exact same WinSxS folder on Server 2008, only it's a bit larger on that system.

     


    Currently my Winsxs folder is 6.53GB and growing, others have far greater! For what exactly? Something that I'm going to install in the near future? The whole point of having to install the OS from a medium is that the drivers will be available on that same installation CD if they were needed to function appropriately.

    There is not a single being on this planet that needs to have drivers/software in the Winsxs folder for an application they will never see or even use, and yet Microsoft introduces this absurd idea, which takes up their customers valuable hard drive real-estate. If I'm going to be installing 3rd party software, after installing Vista, that may have compatibility issues, the Vista installer should prompt the user displaying a list of applications Vista will install compatibility checks for. NOT install cab files for every single piece of popular software/driver that's freely available on the market.

     

    You missed my previous post here. WinSxS is much, much, more than just drivers, Windows Update or a solution for DLL ***.  Also, the structure of the Vista installation disk has changed. It's not as easy to extract a file or driver as it was with previous versions of Windows installation disks. Here is the link from that previous post again.

     

    Ask the Core Team : What is the WINSXS directory in Windows 2008 and Windows Vista and why is it so large?:
    http://blogs.technet.com/askcore/archive/2008/09/17/what-is-the-winsxs-directory-in-windows-2008-and-windows-vista-and-why-is-it-so-large.aspx


    To humor your "can my machine handle vista" theory, I've a $8,000 custom built system dual xeon sli config and over 6TB of storage, my OS and Applications run from a 74GB array (separate drives) and that space is not real-estate for a Winsxs folder which will continue to grow with unnecessary junk, the array is meant to speed up my applications performance and CAD, not some bogus uneeded drivers I'll never use. As noted previously it's not about how the system runs, it's about taking up unessential disk space. Windows XP I've never in my life, even in a large Corporate environment been subjected to DLL ***, even building our own images.

     

    6TB of hard disk space and your concerned about a 6.5GB folder? Let's see, that would be around 0.09765625% of your hard drive space.

     

    As I have explained before in this thread, the WinSxS folder does not just keep growing exponentially. I have had Vista installed on a system here since 11/2006 and it has seen many, many, software and hardware installs and uninstalls and the largest I have seen the WinSxS folder was 7.6GB. It's current size is 6.4GB. 

     

    Sorry, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but you started out with "Vista is absurdly a resource hog" and you ended with  "it's not about how the system runs, it's about taking up unessential disk space".

     

    With just the information in this thread alone, how can you possibly state that the WinSxS folder is not essential?

     

     

    Regards,

     

    ------------------------------------
    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

     

     

     

    Friday, September 26, 2008 1:00 AM
  • is their a way to clean upp the winxsx folder
    im running windows vista ultimate x64
    my C is 40GB abd 35mb is left
    their is nothing to install
    only thing i have installed is some Programming languages
    i really need some space in C

    if any mother f....king idot form Microsoft is to see this did u ever thing that people has to work in windows ??
    what the *** u wore thing king getting bankrupt ??

    Friday, September 26, 2008 12:42 PM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

     

    With just the information in this thread alone, how can you possibly state that the WinSxS folder is not essential?

     

     



    As for the statement of TB disk storage... that's for "NON-Windows" data. There is no way I'll set any Windows application on those drives. I've specifically set aside an array with 74GB for the OS/Applications and that 'should' be more than enough. Vista system/user settings and files, shouldn't have to take up 17GB of that disk space...


    I'll get back to you on the rest...


    In the mean time... How can you/Microsoft justify Winsxs taking up over 6+++GB (NON SYSTEM) space on a "Customers" workstation? (I haven't read anything about how they can justify this... How about Microsoft offering a combo selection of 10k drives, with the purchase of their already exuberantly priced OS)


    When Windows XP released we could easily remove unessential components, a few weeks after SP1/2 (SP3 is a joke) was released I literally scaled XP down to 2.3/2.6GB Total disk space, that's stable and secure. Now, with Vista's release it's finding a needle in a haystack and a pain in the *** to slim down.



    On a side note, customers will soon become sick and tired with Microsofts ********* and move to either a Mac / Linux based system. It's not like it hasn't already started... the appliance market is nearly dominated by BSD.


    Windows vs. Walls?! Please, can't Microsoft NOT take claim on Windows (non software) and Walls... I guess the next thing Gates will say is they invented them. Hey, at least Apples ad campaign was "Clever" and "Witty," I guess Gates doesn't know the meaning of the two words... yet Billy is claiming Apple is "Racist" hah, so beyond your unintellectual mind Bill.


    Bill needs another pie in the face!

    Sunday, September 28, 2008 2:38 PM
  • Have just read all the pages on this forum here's my 2 penny's worth.

    This is a fresh format and re-install.


    My system is running Windows XP pro 64bit and Windows Home Premium 64bit dual booting.

    Windows xp 64bit folder sizes.

    Program files 93.5 Mb
    Program files (x86) 3.3gig
    Application Data 39.8 Mb
    Windows 4.83 gig of which the winsxs folder is 49.2 Mb

    Total space available from 76.8GB is 57.8 GB used space is 18.9 GB.


    ==+==

    Windows vista 64bit folder sizes

    Program files  474 Mb
    Program files (x86) 3.63 gig
    Program data 259 Mb
    Windows 23.1 GIG of which the  winsxs folder  is   12.2 gig


    Total space available from  62.8GB is 25.3GB.  used space is 37.5 GB.

    Both partitions are more than either OS sees as recommended size.

    Both above running EXACTLY THE SAME PROGRAMS ONLY THE OS WAS CHANGED.

    The only software installed on both partitions is, Microsoft office 2007, Kaspersky anti virus, and Jet audio. ALL other software is installed onto separate Hard drives ie; games are on a games hard drive, music is on a music hard drive, you can see what Im getting at!.. 

    The comments from
    Ronnie Vernon MVP appear as if he does not appreciate that he is talking to people that know anything other that its got a screen and a keyboard. I see this as a major issue.

    My system has 4(four) hard drives 3 of which are 1terabyte drives. the reason for using the drive that I have and dual booting it in two partitions is that it is a fast F**ker. I am getting 5.9 on all tests in the windows experience index.

    I have installed the service pack but it hasn't made any difference in size to the winsxs folder and 12.2 GIG is just taking the P*ss.

    I also have a Netbook Advent 4211 this comes with XP 32 bit and a 80 gig hard drive which has a recovery partition leaving just over 60 gig if this was running the above Vista configuration it would be unusable, what would be Ronnies solution then.

    ==+==

    All anyone appears to want from this forum is for someone to look at this problem properly and to suggest a reason why so many of us are getting such various differences in size,

    Something must be going on somewhere to give such differing sizes and just telling us to get bigger hard drives is insulting in the extreme,

    I have been using and building computer/systems since the Oric Atmos (I still have it) and the original hard drive which is a 15min Cassette.

    Just goes to show why so many people look at Linux and the other alternatives, many of which are considerably cheaper than buying a bigger hard drive.

    ==+==

    So come on Microsoft, sort it out am getting very board with having to throw more and more hard drives away as your OS wont fit on them.
      (They are recycled before any comments on throwing away).
    Monday, September 29, 2008 12:07 AM
  • so everyone who has this kind of issue just keep writing back here untill anyone with power from microsoft eventually notice it and maybe something will change.... then again... i am usually just a big dreamer! Smile

    Monday, September 29, 2008 12:32 AM
  •  OdinBear wrote:


    The comments from
    Ronnie Vernon MVP appear as if he does not appreciate that he is talking to people that know anything other that its got a screen and a keyboard. I see this as a major issue.


    I agree.. Never experienced this so-called "DLL ***" in XP, home or building corporate images. This type of attitude Ronnie Vernon MVP is typical of most all the arrogant Microsoft fans.

    The Winsxs issue is a VALID "PROBLEM." Yet Microsoft and it's jesters do their best at trying to force feed us their *** of "we don't know how to fix it..." bundled with countless paragraphs of rambling BS.
    Monday, September 29, 2008 12:57 AM
  • Whistl3r

     

    You don't need to resort to personal attacks or gang up on someone just because they have a different viewpoint than the rest of the herd, or they are just refusing to say what you wish to hear?

     

    My main points are:

     

    1. The WinSxS component is NOT broken. It works exactly the way it was designed to work.

     

    2. Every complaint about WinSxS boils down to one of disk space. For the vast majority of users, this is not a real problem, but I do recognize that it can be a real problem for others in certain situations. I have yet to see any 2 users who have the 'exact' same setup and use their computer in 'exactly' the same way.

     

    3. There are ways to optimize and tweak Vista to use much less disk space, but trying to reduce the size of any system component, just for the sake of making it smaller, including the WinSxS system component, is not an option. This will only lead to many more unexpected problems and a very bad experience.

     

    4. I have taken the time to test just about every way possible of reducing the size the WinSxS component and in all cases, the results were not pretty.

     

    Regards,

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Monday, September 29, 2008 2:31 AM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:
     

    1. The WinSxS component is NOT broken. It works exactly the way it was designed to work.


    If you slim it down and doesn't work it's a broken worthless application. It is a problem when 90% of your (Microsoft's) consumer base are complaining about the Winsxs folder and want it RESOLVED.




    2. Every complaint about WinSxS boils down to one of disk space. For the vast majority of users, this is not a real problem, but I do recognize that it can be a real problem for others in certain situations. I have yet to see any 2 users who have the 'exact' same setup and use their computer in 'exactly' the same way.


    Yet it isn't Microsofts decision to conclude... that it's consumers need a larger hard disc to operate Vista. As previously noted a 74GB array is more than sufficient to operate a system and install numerous programs, but since this Winsxs "Problem" wastes valuable data storage.


    Yes, Microsoft did take a leap backwards in technology when the Winsxs folder started to use GB of data vs MB.


    Doesn't surprise me that Microsoft doesn't follow technology. Let's take Ubuntu for example... if you needed a driver or a upgraded component you can either use the provided CD OR obtain the components from the web.


    Again... 2,3,4,5,6 GB of data for the Winsxs folder.... please.


    3. There are ways to optimize and tweak Vista to use much less disk space, but trying to reduce the size of any system component, just for the sake of making it smaller, including the WinSxS system component, is not an option. This will only lead to many more unexpected problems and a very bad experience.



    My point exactly. Besides the other so called tweaks only slim the os down 1-2GB... and yet the consumers have to deal with GB's of useless and unessential (multiple duplications) data in Winsxs... tha'ts ridiculous.
    Monday, September 29, 2008 3:47 AM
  •  

    @whistl3r:

     

    What you don't seem to understand even though it was mentioned many times by now:

     

    WinSxS practically contains the whole OS! So if it has 10GB that's about the whole space the operating system takes, excluding the page file and hibernation file.

     

    All the files in other directories under C:\Windows are just hard linked to files in WinSxS, but don't take any additional storage space.

     

    Yes, the OS takes more space than XP, no argument there. The reason has been stated numerous times by now. But it's far from the horrifying problem you make it to be.

     

    Vista is not meant for systems with small storage space, that much is clear. Maybe MS will offer a new OS in the future for that market, but until then, XP has to take this role (just as DOS is still used for even smaller systems today!).

     

    So please stop whining, it doesn't get us anywhere and it's just offending!

    Monday, September 29, 2008 5:18 AM
  •  whistl3r wrote:

    If you slim it down and doesn't work it's a broken worthless application. It is a problem when 90% of your (Microsoft's) consumer base are complaining about the Winsxs folder and want it RESOLVED.

     

    90%? Where did you get that figure?

     

    Yet it isn't Microsofts decision to conclude... that it's consumers need a larger hard disc to operate Vista. As previously noted a 74GB array is more than sufficient to operate a system and install numerous programs, but since this Winsxs "Problem" wastes valuable data storage.

     

    The larger hard disks were already out there, long before Vista was released. Just look at the stats for hard disk sizes and cost of hard drives. They have doubled in size every year for many years and at the same time, the cost has plummeted. Not too many years ago, they cost around 3 to 4 dollars per GB, today they are around .15 cents per GB and less. When XP was released, the typical hard drive was 20-40GB. When Vista was released it was already 160GB-320GB.

     

    There has always been a tradition of trying to reduce the size of operating systems and this is OK. But how many people have ever targeted the System32 folder or the Windows folder when reducing the size of the OS? The problem surfaces when people hold onto the old perspectives of disk sizes. To these folks a folder that is 6-9GB is like an irresistable, ripe plum that is very difficult to ignore.

     

     

    Yes, Microsoft did take a leap backwards in technology when the Winsxs folder started to use GB of data vs MB.

     

    But, the side by side IS advanced technology? I have said this before. The concept of the side by side component has been developed over a period of years and was just in it's infancy with Windows ME and futher matured in XP. It was finally made a full fledged system component in Vista. So how is this a leap backward?


     


    Doesn't surprise me that Microsoft doesn't follow technology. Let's take Ubuntu for example... if you needed a driver or a upgraded component you can either use the provided CD OR obtain the components from the web.

     

    So what's the difference? Most hardware drivers are already included in the Vista installation and more are being added all the time. If you need a newer, updated driver, you get it from the manufacturer of that device on the internet? This is not even considering the drivers that are distributed through Windows Update.


    Again... 2,3,4,5,6 GB of data for the Winsxs folder.... please.

     

    My point exactly. Besides the other so called tweaks only slim the os down 1-2GB... and yet the consumers have to deal with GB's of useless and unessential (multiple duplications) data in Winsxs... tha'ts ridiculous.

     

    You keep using the terms 'useless and 'unessential', so I have a challenge for you.

     

    Take ownership and change the permissions on the WinSxS folder and just rip it out. This may convince you just how useful and essential it really is.

     

    Let us know the results.

     

    Regards,




    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Monday, September 29, 2008 5:26 AM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

    90%? Where did you get that figure?

    The power of the internet and google is amazing. It’s not my job to analyze this information, but it’s out there… do the research and you’ll find out. However, most users stop complaining about this issue due to the fact that Microsoft is so stubborn that they ‘think’ the Winsxs file system ‘works’ when in fact it is broken… applying numerous redundant files is again unessential.


    The larger hard disks were already out there, long before Vista was released. Just look at the stats for hard disk sizes and cost of hard drives. They have doubled in size every year for many years and at the same time, the cost has plummeted. Not too many years ago, they cost around 3 to 4 dollars per GB, today they are around .15 cents per GB and less. When XP was released, the typical hard drive was 20-40GB. When Vista was released it was already 160GB-320GB.

    I guess with the larger discs available on the market justifies that a OS manufacturer could design the OS to be over 100GB. Quite sad actually, an OS can run off a 1GB flash drive with full features. Heck, going back to Ubuntu… much much lighter than Vista, but lacks support for most applications available and a user will need to purchase “Wine/Other” in order for those applications to work.


    There has always been a tradition of trying to reduce the size of operating systems and this is OK. But how many people have ever targeted the System32 folder or the Windows folder when reducing the size of the OS? The problem surfaces when people hold onto the old perspectives of disk sizes. To these folks a folder that is 6-9GB is like an irresistable, ripe plum that is very difficult to ignore.  

     So we’re asking permission to reduce the size of Windows? I doubt anyone cares what Microsoft thinks. Even if Microsoft obfuscated the system, someone will find a way around it. Props to that individual, I’m pro source.

    As for reducing System32/Windows directories, I do it all the time, as well as hundreds (if not thousands) that have successfully reduced the size of these directories. Fact is once these files are reduced the system seems to be much more stable and has a quicker response time.

    Sure the average user wouldn’t know how to accomplish reducing the size of a system, but that’s beside the point. The system should have been reduced in size the moment Windows is released. PROVIDE the USER the option of what to install, not force feed them what you ‘think’ would be beneficial for the user. Much like Microsoft’s promotional campaign ads of Vista, clearly false advertisement and misleading.

    Just because hard disc drives are fairly cost efficient does not justify the size of the Winsxs directory.


    But, the side by side IS advanced technology? I have said this before. The concept of the side by side component has been developed over a period of years and was just in it's infancy with Windows ME and futher matured in XP. It was finally made a full fledged system component in Vista. So how is this a leap backward?

    So… utilizing 4-12GB of unessential data on the consumers hard drive just for Winsxs is ‘advanced technology’? Sorry… far from that. If Winsxs was ‘advanced’ in any way it would ‘know’ what is ‘essential’ to operate… NOT duplicate most every resource on the system.


    So what's the difference? Most hardware drivers are already included in the Vista installation and more are being added all the time. If you need a newer, updated driver, you get it from the manufacturer of that device on the internet? This is not even considering the drivers that are distributed through Windows Update.

    That did not answer the question. I do not rely on ‘Vista’ to install drivers and ‘should’ never have to… I should always depend on the Manufacturer of that device to provide the drivers, not Microsoft.

     

    You keep using the terms 'useless and 'unessential', so I have a challenge for you.

    Take ownership and change the permissions on the WinSxS folder and just rip it out. This may convince you just how useful and essential it really is.

     

    Let us know the results.

     

    Never did I say ‘Winsxs’ was completely useless and unessential, it’s the redundant amount of information that it contains, which a user will never even use. I guess you also missed the point I made when folder is deleted, it’s about fundamental usage and Vista Winsxs does not display this. Windows XP ‘Winsxs’ never seen above 200mb…

    Sure I could go through Winsxs to slim it down again, but it’s not an easy task.

    You missed the point. I’ve read countless posts and explanations of Winsxs and others ‘trying’ to justify it’s size, all I read are paragraphs of redundant ***, people that don’t ‘really’ know. Sure it’s function is to work side-by-side with applications, but it’s not a storage space for unessential data. Also, Vista is broken if it can’t use files directly from the system32 directory and rely heavily on Winsxs for those files.

    I guess everyone and their grandmother needs 20 different languages on their system and drivers that match that language. Keyboards, mice, or other peripherals that a user will never attach… Heck, looking at my Winsxs folder and another that I’m viewing side-by-side… look very very similar and contain multiple languages to several drivers that will never be used, keyboards, mice, printers, IIS (which isn’t even installed – please this is a home system), mdac, oracle, mobile, wireless (this is a PC and lan based – not to mention the wireless service enabled by default on a lan system), speech engine (please, if I wanted it I’d install it), sysprep (what the,,, is this doing here), tabletpc (again… wth), tapi (again…), wlan (sure it’s ‘really’ essential),  smartcard (again unessential), just to name a few of the unessential applications, drivers, etc that is listed in the Winsxs directory.  Interesting that you and Microsoft believe that’s an ‘essential’ need, beyond others.  If I need languages installed I’ll install direct from the DVD, if I choose “ENGLISH” during setup that’s what I expect to be installed… not additional languages for dutch, traditional Japanese or others. Those alone add up to 3GB of UNESSENTIAL / USELESS data!

     

    So tell me and those others whom are concerned about this… WHAT FILES (justifiable use) are NEEDED in order for Vista/Winsxs to function correctly?

     

     

    Monday, September 29, 2008 6:56 PM
  • Size is not really the matter for me.  My laptop is 250gb and i store pics, music, documents on a maxtor portable hard drive also 250gb.  

     

    Recently I have had problems with two programs: I can't run Windows Media Player anymore and about a week after wmp stopped working correctly  CA Security Center runs really slow until it shows me the message below about the corrupt file.  I can open wmp but it won't let me play anything except the sample music. I can't change the settings, etc.  I tried to correct the problem with wmp but nothing would work and it won't let me uninstall it or reinstall it from the website.  It's not even listed on the add/remove programs though I have found all of it's files.   The wmp folder now tells me it is corrupt and unreadable so I can not even get into the folder to see what needs to be checked out.  

     

    The corrupt file directory that CA advised me about:  C:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft-windows-w..eakerstemmer-korean_31bf3856ad364e35_7.0.6001.16503_none_14072d09797cf93d    when I try to open the folder it is telling me the same thing as the wmp file folder.  All the other winsxs folders allow me to open them.

     

    could this corrupted file be related to wmp?  and why can't I fix it so I can use wmp or uninstall it?  I have only had the laptop since March this year and had no problems until a few weeks ago with wmp and now the corrupt winsxs folder.  And I have run Chdsk utility as the message said to do within the pop up and nothing changed!

    Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:11 PM
  •  

    So when this huge Winsxs folder is good and 'not broken', what's the BENEFIT?

    Why should we grin and bear it?

    Isnt it possible to have multiple versions of dlls on XP without having that bloat?

     

    Please no generic anwsers ('essential for the functioning of Windows' or 'improving user experience')

     

    Regards

     

    Kel

    Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:11 PM
  •  

    I am a simple soul and much of this thread has gone over my head, I am afraid, and I am hoping for some plain english advice. I have an 18-month old laptop with an 80Gb partitioned hard drive loaded with Vista.  I did have a lot of files on the system - photos, videos etc but noticed the hard drive was filling up too rapidly so invested in a portable HDD and cleared most of the Users files off.  Pleased with my work I was amazed to see that I am now getting out of memory warnings relating to drive 'c'.  Having tried a disk clean up I installed some file sizing software and found it was primarily data stored under winSxS in excess of 7Gb, which I gather I cannot change or remove.

     

    Two questions:

     

    1.  I see some of you have mentioned changing partition sizes - are there some 'idiot-proof' instructions I could follow to allow me to do this?

     

    2.  I am told the laptop was originally intended for XP (I wasn't aware of this at the time but couldn't buy an XP version anyway).  Would I be better off removing Vista all together and replacing it with XP? 

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ang

    Friday, October 03, 2008 4:48 PM
  • Hi all,

    I have a fairly new laptop, an HP Compaq 8710p, with 120 GB Hard Drive.
    This hard drive is split into two partitions; a 40 GB C drive and a 80 GB D drive.

    Now, since I recently upgraded my total memory capacity on this machine, going from 2 to 4 GB, I though I'd give Vista 64-bit a try.

    After installing Vista, all the updates, Service Pack 1, some HP drivers VMWare Workstation 6 and Office Pro 2007, I got a message saying that disk space on the C drive was running low. I could think of only three words right then: WTF?

    I downloaded FileTree, to see what takes up all the space. I soon deleted the Service Pack 1 install file, which is a whopping 700 MB. But, at the top of the list, came the catalog C:\Windows\Winsxs, which was measured to over 9 GB!!
    Since this catalog is under Windows, I figured that this is probably not supposed to be deleted. So I started to search for information on the catalog, and came to this thread.

    Having read the information here, I do have a few questions:
    I see that some of you mention that disk space today is cheap, and disks like 500+ GB are very common. On laptops? Hello? Eh, NO!
    Vista is not a server software, where you have terrabytes of storage space. It's a workstation OS, and laptops are VERY common today.

    Is this new winsxs setup Vista is using, maybe the reason why Vista is slower than XP? It must cost some resources doing all this software and versioning checking all the time.

    And finally, You should let the user themselves select whether to have this feature enabled or not.
    Monday, October 06, 2008 10:35 AM
  • Agreed., Microshafts winsxs is a joke!

    I have a Vista 64-bit Ultimate.

    Winsxs:
    19.6GB (21,125,747,315 bytes)
    Contains 68,424 Files, 16,569 Folders


    What a waste...
    Monday, October 06, 2008 5:49 PM
  • user="Frank-Ove"]Hi all,

    I have a fairly new laptop, an HP Compaq 8710p, with 120 GB Hard Drive.
    This hard drive is split into two partitions; a 40 GB C drive and a 80 GB D drive.

    Now, since I recently upgraded my total memory capacity on this machine, going from 2 to 4 GB, I though I'd give Vista 64-bit a try.

    After installing Vista, all the updates, Service Pack 1, some HP drivers VMWare Workstation 6 and Office Pro 2007, I got a message saying that disk space on the C drive was running low. I could think of only three words right then: WTF?

    I downloaded FileTree, to see what takes up all the space. I soon deleted the Service Pack 1 install file, which is a whopping 700 MB. But, at the top of the list, came the catalog C:\Windows\Winsxs, which was measured to over 9 GB!!
    Since this catalog is under Windows, I figured that this is probably not supposed to be deleted. So I started to search for information on the catalog, and came to this thread.

     

    9GB is typical for the WinSxS folder on  a 64bit installation. On a 32bit installation, the typical size is 6GB, but the 64bit, by necessity, has to include 64bit components 'plus' all of the 32bit components for compatibility.

     

    You might want to tweak the maximum space available for System Restore. By default, it allocates 15% of the System Volume. Here is a link for the instructions. I recommend no more than 2-3GB maximum.

     

    How to adjust system restore disk space in Windows Vista:
    http://bertk.mvps.org/html/diskspacev.html

     


    Having read the information here, I do have a few questions:
    I see that some of you mention that disk space today is cheap, and disks like 500+ GB are very common. On laptops? Hello? Eh, NO!
    Vista is not a server software, where you have terrabytes of storage space. It's a workstation OS, and laptops are VERY common today.

     

    The move right now is to purchase a laptop to 'replace' your desktop. This, by necessity, means a much larger hard drive and more RAM.

     

    Here is a laptop review website where they have a list of 165+ laptops that include 500GB or more of internal hard drive storage with 2-4GB of RAM.

     

    500 GB or more Laptops - CNET Reviews:
    http://reviews.cnet.com/laptop-reviews/?filter=500076_14664109_&tag=mncol

     

    As far as the price of hard drive space is concerned, take a look at the following website for a comprehensive history of the subject. It's a lot of fun when you think that some people actually paid 193 USD for 'one Megabyte' of storage space. When XP was first released, the typical price for hard drives was 4-5 USD per GB. Topday it's less than 15 Cents per GB.

     

    Cost of Hard Drive Space:
    http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/winchest.html


     

    As far as comparing Servers with Workstations, this is just a matter of perspective. 20 years ago the typical file server had appx. 8x the storage space of the typical workstation. This same ratio is still true today.


    Is this new winsxs setup Vista is using, maybe the reason why Vista is slower than XP? It must cost some resources doing all this software and versioning checking all the time.

     

    No. Used hard drive space does not equal less available resources as long as there is enough free space for temporary files. The only time any 'versioning check' is performed is when a software application is first installed.

     


    And finally, You should let the user themselves select whether to have this feature enabled or not.

     

    It's not a 'feature'? With this rationale, you could say that the System32 folder is a 'feature'. 




    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Monday, October 06, 2008 8:00 PM
  •  

    Hi again! Smile

    I think everyone gets the point that hard disk space is cheap... Laptop can be another issue... but then again there are larger laptop hdd availlable...

    The problem people are having is that they have a current hard drive (partitioned or not) for use on the C: drive as the windows anywhere between 25 and 40gb... i dont quite remember somewhere you said the minimum was 30... (i think)...

    anyway seeing as my winsxs folder is now around 14gb of size... and my C: drive is 30gb total... well its pretty full...

    I do not want to reformat everything... repartition (which would mean deleting the data D: partition too)...

    Yes i am totally pissed off because of all that... cause had i known i would have made the C: drive 60gb instead!!!

    so after 10 pages of discution... nothing has changed... no solution are availlable... no patch is on the way... no settings either... so basically we are screwed...

    I'll keep checking now and then in case anything would get fixed... then again, with microsoft... i doubt it... its like xbox.. (i work in a 3rd party video game company)... many problems... no solutions! Smile

    have a nice day!!
    -=Fire Hawk X=-

    Monday, October 06, 2008 9:10 PM
  • user="FireHawkX"]


    Hi again!

    I think everyone gets the point that hard disk space is cheap... Laptop can be another issue... but then again there are larger laptop hdd availlable...

    The problem people are having is that they have a current hard drive (partitioned or not) for use on the C: drive as the windows anywhere between 25 and 40gb... i dont quite remember somewhere you said the minimum was 30... (i think)...

     

    The published minimum is 20GB, 'Recommended' is 40GB.

     

    I maintain a production system with a 40GB system volume and don't seem to have any problem keeping the size down around 20-22GB with regular maintenance.



    anyway seeing as my winsxs folder is now around 14gb of size... and my C: drive is 30gb total... well its pretty full...

    I do not want to reformat everything... repartition (which would mean deleting the data D: partition too)...

     

    14GB is large, even by normal standards? How are you measuring the size?



    Yes i am totally pissed off because of all that... cause had i known i would have made the C: drive 60gb instead!!!

     

    You're not the only one!  



    so after 10 pages of discution... nothing has changed... no solution are availlable... no patch is on the way... no settings either... so basically we are screwed...

    I'll keep checking now and then in case anything would get fixed... then again, with microsoft... i doubt it... its like xbox.. (i work in a 3rd party video game company)... many problems... no solutions!

    have a nice day!!
    -=Fire Hawk X=-

     

    For the many reasons I have stated before in this thread, there is no solution for reducing the size of this folder in the current version of Windows.

     

    I have also stated that 'nothing is broken' with regard to this component. It works exactly the way it was designed.

     

    This discussion about WinSxS  has been going on since the early beta releases of Vista, continued in the SP1 beta, and still being discussed here.

    Maybe in Windows 7? 

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:24 AM
  • Hi Ronnie,

     

    Thank you for your feedback.

    I checked out the System Restore space allocation, and it was currently set to 2.3 GB, so I won't touch this.

     

    As for future versions of Windows, I hope MS takes this thread's comments into consideration, and makes this part of Windows somewhat better.

     

    and you're right. Storage space is cheap. Very cheap!  But even you have to agree that if your 64-bit Vista installation uses (minimum) 20-22 GB of storage space, and MS recommends the system drive is 40 GB, there's something wrong...?

    As far as I understand, the winsxs folder also increases in size if more programs are installed. And I would guess that this applies whether you install it on the system drive or another partition, right?

    Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:29 AM
  • Have posted on this issue before but still not seeing anything new on the subject.

    What I would like to see is someone from the development team of Windows 7 (whatever you want to call it) post on this subject and let ALL of us know that this is something that they are looking into.

    I can remember that before Vista or (Longhorn) etc that they were going to do away with folders all together and that games etc would just run. you wouldn't need to know where documents were the software would just run them. *winsxs* seems to be of that vein.

    The point being Vista dosn't work that way and WE CAN install software where we WANT it to go i.e you CAN have a Drive for Music, Games, Movies, etc so why not a partition or drive for this folder *winsxs* as an option when you are doing an install. Simply as you would be able to keep your Vista partition free,

    New laptops may have 250GB in total but almost all of them have partitioned (hidden) recovery drives etc, I had a Medion Laptop with 3 partitions, 1 was the "OS" 2 was "Documents" and 3 was "Recovery" the point 250GB can soon be swallowed up
    And another point on Laptops or any Store build system. Almost without excemption You Cannot replace the hard drive without Invalidating your Warrenty.  Also many of them have the "OS" backed on on a hidden partition which YOU cannot copy or resize as that would Invalidate the tems of usage that Microsoft "OS" runs under.

    Also many store build systems also have the Bios locked preventing you from changing the hard drive or anything else.

    It also appears to be a problem that in this folder you have every language under the sun as posted earlier, and every application in existance.

    I agree that when you are installing the "OS" and specify English UK or US. Or any other language, That is the only Language it should install simply because when you go online if you go on a site thats in another language you are asked to "Download" the relivant langaage, but the damn things already on the system in the *winsxs* folder

    If Microsoft are going to do Nothing but ram *winsxs* on to systems in the future in its current format they need to do a drastic rethink about the minimum hard drive spec, as  it is obvious that this is a issue, and there is probably one heck of a lot of people who are fed up with this problem but havnt found this forum.

    I would like to see Microsoft place a Poll on the main site either on the Downloads section or MSN home page. Obviously it would need to be worded correctly as you cannot exclude those people who might not be "Techies" but know that something is happening to the hard drive size.But might not know what, and as All of us on this forum knows when you do a fresh install and try to open the hard drive it comes up with the warning that it's hidden keep out. The point being that they might not change the setting to find out about the *winsxs* folder.

    This simple measure could give the Development team invaluable information about the issue, and some indication of the real number of people who see the hard drive dissapearing and dont know why.



    My  how Iv'e gone on, but hopefully not seen as a rant.


    Conclusion.    "Would like to be able to set the location of the *winsxs* folder during installation."

    Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:22 AM
  • OdinBear:

     

    Once again:

     

    WinSxS *contains* the whole Operating System. All the files the itself OS requires are in there!

     

    Almost all other files under C:\Windows are just hard linked to the correct files in WinSxS. These links don't take any additional space, the file is stored only once on the disk, no matter how many links to it exist. But to do this, the link target has to be on the same partition. So it's just not possible to move WinSxS to somewhere else. It has to reside on the same partition as the OS. It practically *IS* the OS.

     

    This discussion really is getting us nowhere since noone seems to bother to at least try to understand these facts.

     

    MS might perhaps change the policy of what files to store in WinSxS and they might even give more control over that policy. But it cannot be moved anywhere else.

     

    It's a good idea NOT to put "Program Files" and "User" on the same partition as the OS if that partition is small. This way, 30 GB will be enough for the OS. WinSxS is just not the problem, all the other files cluttering C:\ usually are.

     

    So, I agree that MS should offer a easier way to move "Program Files" and "User" to another partition. But to ask them to change WinSxS is like asking them to move the OS files themselves to another partition than the OS partition. It just doesn't make any sense.

    Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:36 AM
  •  Grestorn wrote:

     

    It's a good idea NOT to put "Program Files" and "User" on the same partition as the OS if that partition is small. This way, 30 GB will be enough for the OS. WinSxS is just not the problem, all the other files cluttering C:\ usually are.

     



    I agree. This may sound as the way to go. Anyone got any tips on how to make this possible today?
    Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:44 AM
  • Ronnie : I calculate all size by rightclicking on a folder and selecting property... Smile
    then i take the biggest number which is usually the total size! Smile

    thx for taking time to answer.... just sad that there aint no solution.... oh well! Smile

    Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:22 PM
  •  Grestorn wrote:

    OdinBear:

     

    Once again:

     

    WinSxS *contains* the whole Operating System. All the files the itself OS requires are in there!

     

    Almost all other files under C:\Windows are just hard linked to the correct files in WinSxS. These links don't take any additional space, the file is stored only once on the disk, no matter how many links to it exist. But to do this, the link target has to be on the same partition. So it's just not possible to move WinSxS to somewhere else. It has to reside on the same partition as the OS. It practically *IS* the OS.

     

    This discussion really is getting us nowhere since noone seems to bother to at least try to understand these facts.

     




    Not having a go at you, but did you read my whole post?. From what I wrote we all know its cr*p and this forum's getting nowhere, I am trying to take this discussion forward to the next "OS" we know Nothings going to be done for Vista, Dosn't mean that Microsoft shouldn't be looking at the issue for the Next "OS" whatever they decide to call it.

    Anyway that's my thoughts, and from the posts others on this forum am making I am not alone.

    We need to KNOW that Microsoft recognise that people ARE bothered about this, but apart from those who know about this forum What are they or anyone else doing to see if there are Other people worried but dont know whats happening.

    Thats all I have to say on this matter. I think my last post was clearly about the Next "OS" not this one.
    Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:24 PM
  • Hey Ronnie, you said in one of your posts:

     

    For the many reasons I have stated before in this thread, there is no solution for reducing the size of this folder in the current version of Windows.

     

    I have also stated that 'nothing is broken' with regard to this component. It works exactly the way it was designed.

     

    This discussion about WinSxS  has been going on since the early beta releases of Vista, continued in the SP1 beta, and still being discussed here.

    Maybe in Windows 7? 

     

    Are we ever going to see an option (possibly in 7) to slim the folder down?  My biggest concern is that the folder keeps growing and if it is only being used infrequently (like software installation) it is of no use to me.  I have laptops that are coming pretty close to a full hard drive because of this folder.

     

    Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:11 PM
  •  OdinBear wrote:

    Not having a go at you, but did you read my whole post?. From what I wrote we all know its cr*p and this forum's getting nowhere, I am trying to take this discussion forward to the next "OS" we know Nothings going to be done for Vista, Dosn't mean that Microsoft shouldn't be looking at the issue for the Next "OS" whatever they decide to call it.

    Anyway that's my thoughts, and from the posts others on this forum am making I am not alone.

    We need to KNOW that Microsoft recognise that people ARE bothered about this, but apart from those who know about this forum What are they or anyone else doing to see if there are Other people worried but dont know whats happening.

    Thats all I have to say on this matter. I think my last post was clearly about the Next "OS" not this one.

     

    OdinBear

     

    Thanks for posting.

     

    If anyone here wants their voice to be heard and contribute their thoughts and wishes for the next version of Windows here is the place to do this. This blog is being operated by some really heavy hitters in the Microsoft Windows Division.

     

    Steven Sinofsky, Senior Vice President, Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group.
    Jon DeVaan, Senior Vice President, Windows Core Operating System Division.
    Members of the Core Windows Engineering Team.

     

    You can sign in and leave your comments.

     

    Welcome to Engineering Windows 7:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/08/14/welcome.aspx

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:48 PM
  • Ronnie,

    Thanks for your insights as to why the folder is there, but I still have some problems.

    First, on a fresh install of x64 after just normal use (installed Office 03, Pidgin and Flock, and that is it) my WinSXS folder has ballooned up to 25gb. I understand, storage has gotten cheaper, bigger drives are the norm, etc. This seems ridiculously large to me.

    I can (and please believe me when I say I am not trying to start an OS war here) install most any Linux flavor safely on a 3gb partition, but I find I almost have to repartition my 40gb to safely have Vista on it. And should something happen to system files, I can easily restore them without a 25gb backlog of old ones.

    These 25gb, when I ran XP a scant week ago, were filled with raw recorded audio tracks. Now I have to sacrifice that space for WinSXS? That is a HUGE tradeoff and nearly has me running back for my XP disks.

    I cannot get a new harddrive in my situation (newly married, shoestring budget).

    So my questions for you are as follows:

    1) Is 25gb normal after just a few days (we're talking 3 days)?
    2) What is normal/expected WinSXS size for x64, x86 (fresh and mature installs)?
    3) What is the advantage of running an OS that uses up resources so rapidly when I could run XP which, after running for years had a system size of just over a gig or so?
    4) How do low-end Vista laptops with 60-ish gb drives (such as the one my sister recently purchased) cope with the added limitations that a 6-25+gb system folder adds?

    Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:42 AM
  • user="Dan Lackey"]Ronnie,

    Thanks for your insights as to why the folder is there, but I still have some problems.

    First, on a fresh install of x64 after just normal use (installed Office 03, Pidgin and Flock, and that is it) my WinSXS folder has ballooned up to 25gb. I understand, storage has gotten cheaper, bigger drives are the norm, etc. This seems ridiculously large to me.

    I can (and please believe me when I say I am not trying to start an OS war here) install most any Linux flavor safely on a 3gb partition, but I find I almost have to repartition my 40gb to safely have Vista on it. And should something happen to system files, I can easily restore them without a 25gb backlog of old ones.

    These 25gb, when I ran XP a scant week ago, were filled with raw recorded audio tracks. Now I have to sacrifice that space for WinSXS? That is a HUGE tradeoff and nearly has me running back for my XP disks.

    I cannot get a new harddrive in my situation (newly married, shoestring budget).

    So my questions for you are as follows:

    1) Is 25gb normal after just a few days (we're talking 3 days)?

    2) What is normal/expected WinSXS size for x64, x86 (fresh and mature installs)?

     

    Dan

     

    No, 25GB is definitely not normal and is ridiculously large. A typical size for WinSxS in an install of the 64bit version of Vista is 9GB. I have never seen one that went over 12GB which was on a system that had a huge amount of software installed in a very short period of time. This particular WinSxS folder was reduced to just under 10GB by the built-in scavenging.

     

    Something on your system is definitely not working right.

     

    How are you measuring the size of the folder? It sounds like you are including something else that should not be included?

     


    3) What is the advantage of running an OS that uses up resources so rapidly when I could run XP which, after running for years had a system size of just over a gig or so?
    4) How do low-end Vista laptops with 60-ish gb drives (such as the one my sister recently purchased) cope with the added limitations that a 6-25+gb system folder adds?

     

    I service a lot of systems and haven't found a problem yet with with the partition size that I recommend of 40GB on 32bit and 60GB on 64bit systems. The 32bit systems usually maintain the system volume at around 19-22GB and the 64bit systems maintain a size of around 24-26GB with proper maintenance.

     

    Oh my, your sister should have done some more shopping.

    You can find low budget laptops for less than 500 USD that comes standard with a 120GB drive and a lot of other bells and whistles.

     



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Wednesday, October 08, 2008 3:41 AM
  •  Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:


     

    No, 25GB is definitely not normal and is ridiculously large. A typical size for WinSxS in an install of the 64bit version of Vista is 9GB. I have never seen one that went over 12GB which was on a system that had a huge amount of software installed in a very short period of time. This particular WinSxS folder was reduced to just under 10GB by the built-in scavenging.

     

    Something on your system is definitely not working right.

     

    How are you measuring the size of the folder? It sounds like you are including something else that should not be included?





    He might have meant that 25GB was the total install... ?
    My Vista 64 Ultimate (with almost identical programs installed like his + a lot more other stuff) = 24GB with 13.3GB in winsxs folder.



    Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:46 AM
  • I'm measuring the size of the WinSXS folder with both WinDirStat and by viewing the WinSXS folder properties (it is not just the Windows folder as a whole, I assure you that :-P ). I'll give it a few days, but there are no pending deletes showing.

    I just can't see the reason I should sacrifice even 10gb of hard drive space for OS files. My personal upper limit on my OS partitioning has always been 15gb for XP, 2000, and various flavors of Linux, and this allowed me the space I wanted. Now the OS wants to take up more than that for itself, when it could be used to store files of my choosing.

    With the exception of this issue, I really like Vista. Truly I do. But this makes it hard not to switch back to XP.

    And my sister DID shop around. She got the laptop SHE wanted, and it was labeled as being able to sufficiently run Vista. Sorry, but most people when shopping for a laptop don't assume the OS is going to take up half of their harddrive. That is a completely unreasonable expectation of people, especially when XP, along with various other flavors of Windows, Linux and OSX, have such a small footprint on the hard drive.
    Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:17 PM
  • user="Dan Lackey"]I'm measuring the size of the WinSXS folder with both WinDirStat and by viewing the WinSXS folder properties (it is not just the Windows folder as a whole, I assure you that :-P ). I'll give it a few days, but there are no pending deletes showing.

     

    OK, it sounds like you are doing this properly. The only reason that I asked the question was that, in the past, some users have included the size of all the available  'Previous Versions' of a file to embellish the size of a particular folder.

     


    I just can't see the reason I should sacrifice even 10gb of hard drive space for OS files. My personal upper limit on my OS partitioning has always been 15gb for XP, 2000, and various flavors of Linux, and this allowed me the space I wanted. Now the OS wants to take up more than that for itself, when it could be used to store files of my choosing.

     

    This has actually been the 'norm' since we first installed DOS with one floppy disc. The problem with Vista was that it experienced many delays and as a result had a lot more 'catching up' to do in order to support all of the newer technology.

     

    We already have some indications that Windows 7 will be striving to cut down the space used by a default installation. Many of the normally included programs will be left out and be available as free, standalone installations, for those users who want them.

     


    With the exception of this issue, I really like Vista. Truly I do. But this makes it hard not to switch back to XP.

    And my sister DID shop around. She got the laptop SHE wanted, and it was labeled as being able to sufficiently run Vista. Sorry, but most people when shopping for a laptop don't assume the OS is going to take up half of their harddrive. That is a completely unreasonable expectation of people, especially when XP, along with various other flavors of Windows, Linux and OSX, have such a small footprint on the hard drive.

     

    Sorry, it wasn't my intention to imply that your Sister does not have the right to pick the system that she want's.

     

    That 60GB drive is plenty large enough to easily run Vista. However, the typical user today, will also be storing a huge amount of pictures, video, music, etc, etc.

     

    You might want to recommend that she purchase an external hard drive to store all of these personal files. She can get a 160GB USB 2.0 drive for around 30-40 USD. This also makes sense because it provides another layer of protection by 'isolating' all of these important files in case of a system meltdown.

     

    If you missed my previous message about the "Engineering Windows 7' blog, you might want to contribute your thoughts to some of  those discussions.

     

    This page has a description of the 6 main topics that they will be concentrating on.

     

    1. Memory usage

    2. CPU utilization

    3. Disk I/O

    4. Boot, Shutdown, Standby/Resume

    5. Base system

    6. Disk footprint

     

    Engineering Windows 7 : Windows 7 -- Approach to System Performance:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/08/27/windows-7-approach-to-system-performance.aspx

     

    Regards,



    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience
    Thursday, October 09, 2008 5:54 PM
  • Hi guys first time poster here. My winsxs folder was 12+ Gb, going through this thread (all 11 pages) I used a couple of the solutions provided, namely:

    - running the sp1 cleaner:
    vsp1cln.exe

    - reducing the system restore file size:
    vssadmin Resize ShadowStorage /On=C: /For=C: /Maxsize=4GB
    (frankly I see no reason why you can't just move the shadow copy files as well as system restore file to a different drive using that command, but try it at your own risk... I left it on my C drive because I don't find windows particularly reliable)


    Going through the above steps shaved some 4Gb off my C drive. While this isn't a big number, on a partition of 40Gb or less, it is over 10%.

    Also you could try moving the page file to a different drive (I use a dedicated drive for this to boost performance, but you can just move it to a different partition where space isn't at a premium).

    To do this, go to My Computer > System Properties > Performance > Advanced > Virtual Memory. Just turn off the auto-manage option and manually set the image to a different drive (for the recommended size, you'll have to do some research. Mine is about 5 gigs).

    Also there's the option of killing the hibernation files which can be done in disk cleanup. Personally that option is closed to me because I put my PC to sleep when I don't use it.

    Odd that they still call it "hibernation files" when in Vista that term no longer applies (it's now called "sleep").

    Last but not least, here's my PC specs:

    - Vista Home Premium 64bit
    - 40Gb C drive, 250Gb D drive, 10Gb E drive (dedicated page file, etc...)
    - 8800GT
    - Intel Q6600
    - 4 Gb DDR400

    Yes I could have partitioned more space to C, but the first install of Vista died after 2 weeks, and I didn't discover this windowsxs problem until recently and there's no way to change main partition size w/o reformatting, which is too big a hassle.
    Thursday, October 16, 2008 5:03 AM
  • I bought a super-advanced Sony lightweight laptop last year, with a 24Gb solid state hard disk for the c: drive, and a separate 180gb D: drive.

    It was great, really fast, and really long lasting battery life.

    Being cautious, I always installed every program in D:\Program files, instead of C:\program files.

    I have been using Microsoft both as a laptop user, and as a system engineer since 1985, and have been a supporter in the past.

     

    However, now due to this ridiculous Winsxs bloat, I now have less than 100mb on my c drive, and there is no way that a normal person would be comfortable taking to resolve this.

     

    I feel like crying, and that I am about to lose $3,000.

    I am speachless, and it seems that I am going to have to spend weeks re-installing Vista (if that can be done).

    XP will not work on this box, due to the solid state disks.

     

    I am screwed, and I wish there had been a warning sign sold with the laptop.

    "Do Not Install Anything At All On This Laptop!"

     

    Why can't Microsoft provide some solution to this?

    You have to.

    Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:48 AM
  •  mrdunky wrote:

    I bought a super-advanced Sony lightweight laptop last year, with a 24Gb solid state hard disk for the c: drive, and a separate 180gb D: drive.

    It was great, really fast, and really long lasting battery life.

    Being cautious, I always installed every program in D:\Program files, instead of C:\program files.

    I have been using Microsoft both as a laptop user, and as a system engineer since 1985, and have been a supporter in the past.

     

    However, now due to this ridiculous Winsxs bloat, I now have less than 100mb on my c drive, and there is no way that a normal person would be comfortable taking to resolve this.

     

    I feel like crying, and that I am about to lose $3,000.

    I am speachless, and it seems that I am going to have to spend weeks re-installing Vista (if that can be done).

    XP will not work on this box, due to the solid state disks.

     

    I am screwed, and I wish there had been a warning sign sold with the laptop.

    "Do Not Install Anything At All On This Laptop!"

     

    Why can't Microsoft provide some solution to this?

    You have to.

     

    The space should suffice if you do the following:

     

    - Move the pagefile to the other drive

    - Disable hibernation (use the disl cleanup tool to get rid of the hibernation file)

    - Move your "Documents" directory to the other drive

    - Check the C:\Users directory and the C:\Program Files directory if there's anything that doesn't need to be there. Especially remove all unneccessary user profiles.

    - Use the SP1 cleanup tool that was mentioned earlier in this thread.

     

    24 GB should be enough for a Vista installation, if you don't put anything else on C:

    Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:55 PM
  • Code Snippet

    and there's no way to change main partition size w/o reformatting


    It is.
    Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:42 AM
  •  mrdunky wrote:

    I bought a super-advanced Sony lightweight laptop last year, with a 24Gb solid state hard disk for the c: drive, and a separate 180gb D: drive.

    It was great, really fast, and really long lasting battery life.

    Being cautious, I always installed every program in D:\Program files, instead of C:\program files.

    I have been using Microsoft both as a laptop user, and as a system engineer since 1985, and have been a supporter in the past.

     

    However, now due to this ridiculous Winsxs bloat, I now have less than 100mb on my c drive, and there is no way that a normal person would be comfortable taking to resolve this.

     

    I feel like crying, and that I am about to lose $3,000.

    I am speachless, and it seems that I am going to have to spend weeks re-installing Vista (if that can be done).

    XP will not work on this box, due to the solid state disks.

     

    I am screwed, and I wish there had been a warning sign sold with the laptop.

    "Do Not Install Anything At All On This Laptop!"

     

    Why can't Microsoft provide some solution to this?

    You have to.



    I assume that's a Sony TZ - I did the same, and am suffering the same problem. I just noticed on the Sony Support page that they're now offering a downloadable Windows XP downgrade for this machine - guess they've had a lot of complaints, and have sorted out XP drivers for the SSHD.
    Saturday, November 08, 2008 7:23 PM
  • "But don't you know, hard drives are only $0.15 per GB ?

    Buy the cheapest pos 500GB Maxtor or Samsung like me, duct-tape it to your Sony TZ, and put Vista on it"

     

    Seriously, what will Ronnie respond ?

     

    "Install Vista on the slow-*** 180GB drive, then use the 24GB SSHD for ReadyBoost

    - Oh wait, ReadyBoost only works with USB drives - damn!"

     

    "Use the SSHD for a big pagefile then ?"

     

    "It's probably best for you to just wait and buy a 60GB SSHD when you can afford it.

    There, there, don't cry - before you know it, SSHDs will be $0.15 per GB.

    Should happen around the 10nm chip manufacturing node."

     

    Seriously, seriously, there is no good solution.

     

    Like generals of WWI, the visionless clowns at Microsoft always fight yesterdays wars.

    Revolutions in hardware always seem to come as complete surprises.

    Just how will MS adapt to the migration towards ultralights, appliances and "wearable computing" "anytime anywhere" ? - Not to mention the changes happening in the corporate market ?

     

    Any devices, where mechanical storage is unacceptable, will largely remain Vista-free.

    In devices where it's just a nuisance, people will have choice.

    Chosing Vista will then either increase hardware costs sharply (oversize SSHDs) or decrease performance (mechanical storage).

     

    Microsoft's solution so far, is to keep XP around for longer than intended.

     

    Can Microsoft reverse course ?

    Can they undo the bloat ?

     

    Not likely this time around.

    Complete Vista compatibility in a future OS can't happen without terrible bloat.

     

    What I predict, is more hacks like vsp1cln.exe to cope with some of the fundamental design flaws in Vista.

     

    Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:59 PM
  •  

    Ahhhhh help, my dumb folder is now 12 GIG, what would happen if you clear the folder, and deny all permissions ?? wil windows still work or does it need this folder ?? theres now 140000 folders in that one....

     

    PLz help !

    Schalk

    Friday, November 14, 2008 5:23 PM
  • I believe Ronnie is to be commended yet again for his patience. No matter what the answer is, no matter how many times explained, there will always be angry people looking for a venting point. It’s easy to yell time and again about something (as those same people will yell at me about how little I must know and how stupid I must be), but all must remember that insulting anyone personally over something on the magnitude of this thread time and again, will only serve as proof that your intention is not the quest for knowledge or the bettering of one’s self, but the thirst for argument and strife and nothing more.

    Saturday, November 15, 2008 8:27 AM
  • Microsoft did really sleep while developing Vista.
    1) Netbooks need XP because Vista is so bloathed
    2) The very poor solution to DLL h.e.l.l. is worse than the problem
    3) Imaging is difficult with a bloathed "clean" install
    4) Isn't virtualisation friendly (large install size)
    5) SSD are comming!
    ...

    WinSXS is incredibly stupid designed. Why keep a copy of every dll, exe, ... XP worked just fine. No signs of DLL h.e.l.l. Come on, tell me why we need a 8 GB large WinSXS folder while XP way of doing things just worked.

    Does MS even confirm the WinSXS issue or are they just ignoring it?
    Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:32 PM
  • I dont know, i searched microsoft's search engine and didn't really find anything. And you see i dont have a problem with disk space(700gig), but formatted my C: Drive into a 30 gig partition ! NOW THATS A PROBLEM,  i really dont want to reinstall Vista  now. I tried to email microsoft but they are so full of *** its hopeless. Dont get me wrong, Vista is great if your pc is fast enough, its just this little problem that im having.

    Saturday, November 15, 2008 6:19 PM
  • Well, besides using vLite to make your own iso without the junk noone uses, I might have a different solution.

     

    After venting my grief at Microsoft in the above, I got to thinking. The main problem seems to be the total lack of control over Vista, after it's been installed. Thus, vLite will only postpone the problems.

    Also, for oem installs, vLite is no option at all.

     

    The good solution would be something like vsp1cln.exe, but which asked you:

    "Component AAA was installed by application BBB. The component consists of CCC files in DDD different versions.

    Application BBB seems to still be installed in location EEE.

    Do you want to remove all old versions of component AAA {Y}es,{N}o,{A}ll ?"

     

    Or better yet, a nice GUI giving an overview of installed components and their origins, dependencies and many versions.

    One could then remove all old versions, orphaned components and never used components and languages with a few mouse clicks.

    If one is worried about "dllhell", one could have an option to backup everything that is removed.

     

    Unfortunately, I have little idea about the internal workings and organization of winsxs - the component/assembly repository - and how to change it.

    Enter WinsxsLite - a batch program I'm working on.

    Instead of removing outdated files, it replaces them with hardlinks to the newest versions.

    That way, Vista still think it has, say, 16 different versions of urlmon.dll, sysmain.sdb, mshtml.dll and so on.

    But in reality, there's only the data object for the newest version of each file, pointed to by 16 different file references (hardlinks).

    With another few tweaks of winsxs, it shaves a couple of GB off a clean SP1 install.

     

    I'm currently cleaning up the code and making it more user friendly.

    I'm planning to include a backup option too.

     

    So far, I haven't noticed any odd behaviour. Windows Update works flawlessly.

    Soon, I'll try running it on my main Vista install.

    Saturday, November 15, 2008 7:06 PM
  •  

    wow... if it does works that will be a great solution indeed!!! cant wait for more progress on that one!!

    please make the backup option so it does backup on another drive though... Wink

    Saturday, November 15, 2008 8:51 PM
  • Sound great, Chris!

    Can't wait to see the result.

     

    Monday, November 17, 2008 7:53 AM
  • Hi Ronnie,

    Not sure if you are still monitoring this thread but I thought I would add my thoughts as it were. I have worked in IT for many years and the Cost of Hard Drive Space page brought back some memories - you used to be able to get 2Mb hard drives for the low low price of £2000 for example and the 64kb upgrade for the BBC micro B required a second mortgage! That said, I appreciate the cost of storage and with the 1.5Tb drives kicking about now it's cheap as chips, however for the more technically minded of us, we are looking at ways of making our systems faster and more effecient all the time.

    My current pc is a quad core overclocked to around 3.2Ghz, 8Gb of RAM and various drives, BUT the system drive is a 10k RPM raptor drive. At the time, and indeed still now they are quite a bit more expensive than your usual run of the mill 7.2k RPM drives hence mine is only 32Gb. More than sufficient for XP providing I installed any large apps or games elsewhere on larger, slower drives.

    Having 8Gb of RAM and only seeing 3 however became a bit pointless so along comes Vista 64bit. Took a bit of getting used to, and personally I`m not a massive advocate of it definately for business use but it does offer a lot of tweaks and far greater administrative control than XP so personally, I see it as a stepping stone to a better, more efficient OS and I`m geniuinely looking forward to Windows 7 (although perhaps after SP1 ;-) ).

    All of that said, I, like many others, was drawn here due to the rather excessive size of the winsxs folder (10.8Gb according to treesize). Now I`ve read all of the pages of this thread / rant and I can fully appreciate people's problems with it being so large, and also the reasons for it existing in the first place - by and large the general public have no idea about their computer and just want it to work, but there are quite a lot of people who are more than happy to install a new untested app, see their OS die and think nothing of starting again. Now I know that is exactly why the WinSxS folder exists, but these same people like to have as much control over their systems as possible hence the cries of "why the hel.l is it keeping this dreamscene wmv file?" and "sample pictures? wtf? DONT WANT THEM!" etc.

    What would be nice is some sort of admin pack tool that would allow advanced users to selectively choose what they want to keep and what they dont - this way if you wipe out the previous 5 versions of vb6 runtime libraries for example then your app dies, it's your own fault, but at least YOU have the control. I think the biggest issue people in this thread are having is that the size of the folder is totally unprecedented and they are not prepared for it regardless of the reasons for it existing. Lets face it it's not something MS are going to shout about in the TV ads - "Your system will be the most robust ever!! But erm, well, hmm, ittakesupwadsofspaceonyourharddrive NEVER MIND BUY VISTA YAY!!". Your mention of the Disk Cleanup being a required task was another gem little seen elsewhere - that along with cleaning up the SP1 install meant my 32Gb drive went from 500Mb free to 4Gb - still not a huge amount left, but enough to work with.

    As I said, not a personal attack at you or MS but I think the main arguement from this thread remains valid - yes, good idea, and most of us know what it's for, but we would really really like some more control over it. Perhaps with Windows 7?
    Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:17 PM
  • I've been an MCP since 1995 and and MCSE since 1996.  I've worked closely with Microsoft on numerous bleeding-edge projects for much of the past two decades.  When I haven't worked directly with Microsoft, I've been a senior consultant either wrking for or working at several different Fortune 100 companies.

     

    In all of that time, and over all of those years, I have never encountered an MVP that had such a dearth of what physicians call "bedside manners" as Ronnie.  His responses are ... infuriating ... ill conceived ... and lacking of a basic comprehension of what is being stated by the mass public.  I'm not sure if he is bucking for a PR position at an oil company or if he is training to be a commentator for Fox News.  It's as if he is deliberately ignoring everything that is being stated and whitewashing the user perceptions as "insignificant whining".

     

    That said, my issue with the hideous size of a clean Vista installation goes to the heart of the future vision at Microsoft.  I am working on a build for a clean virtual machine to be used in a testing and development environment.  If the base Vista OS partition absolutely requires a 16GB of virtual hard disk, before a single application of any type is installed, then the future of Microsoft Virtualization is dead before it enters the starting gate.  That 8GB of that space is essentially a duplicate of the first 8GB is the epitome of absurdity.

    Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:46 PM
  • user="Patrick Logan"]

    I've been an MCP since 1995 and and MCSE since 1996.  I've worked closely with Microsoft on numerous bleeding-edge projects for much of the past two decades.  When I haven't worked directly with Microsoft, I've been a senior consultant either wrking for or working at several different Fortune 100 companies.

     

    In all of that time, and over all of those years, I have never encountered an MVP that had such a dearth of what physicians call "bedside manners" as Ronnie.  His responses are ... infuriating ... ill conceived ... and lacking of a basic comprehension of what is being stated by the mass public.  I'm not sure if he is bucking for a PR position at an oil company or if he is training to be a commentator for Fox News.  It's as if he is deliberately ignoring everything that is being stated and whitewashing the user perceptions as "insignificant whining".

     

    That said, my issue with the hideous size of a clean Vista installation goes to the heart of the future vision at Microsoft.  I am working on a build for a clean virtual machine to be used in a testing and development environment.  If the base Vista OS partition absolutely requires a 16GB of virtual hard disk, before a single application of any type is installed, then the future of Microsoft Virtualization is dead before it enters the starting gate.  That 8GB of that space is essentially a duplicate of the first 8GB is the epitome of absurdity.

     

     

    Patrick

     

    I don't base my decisions to support or not support a certain subject on the popularity of that subject. I don't join the herd, just because it is the herd. However, I do understand that this can be infuriating to the herd. I'm not responsible for the design decisions that Microsoft makes, but I do participate in all of the OS betas and provide feedback, both positive and negative, when those decisions are being considered. 

     

    I did the research on WinSxS and my conclusion was that the concept and all of the many reasons it was created were legitimate.

     

    If you look back in this thread to my first post  maybe you will understand my original concern and why I felt compelled to post here. This was my effort to inject some warnings about the dangers and pitfalls that a typical user might experience, if they read this thread and used any of the advice that was being posted. This thread at that point was only focused on wholesale removal of parts of the WinSxS folder with no regard as to the possible consequences. Of course, the people giving that bad advice always seem to disappear very quickly and leave the mess for others to clean up. Providing technical support for Vista is difficult enough without having users who unknowingly take bad advice and use procedures that could potentially cause them to lose everything and turn their computer into a brick.

     

    I'm not going to repeat everything I have already stated in this thread, you can read that for yourself. 

     

    I will say that, unlike yourself, I am confident in the direction that Microsoft is going.

     

    Perhaps this article will help.

     

    Engineering Windows 7 : Disk Space:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx


     

    In fact, I recommend that everyone read all of the articles on that blog, maybe it will explain some things and give some insight into where Microsoft is going and their vision for the future.

     

     

    Hope this helps.


     


    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience

    Friday, November 21, 2008 12:18 AM
  • WinsxsLite.bat is done.

    If anyone would like to experiment with it, drop me a line here or at chrisbering [AT] live [DOT] com .

     

    Oh, and I haven't included a backup function, so backup the entire partition first.

    Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:49 AM
  • Got answer :-D from chrisbering [AT] live [DOT] com (yep, I replaced AT and DOTSmile

    Technical details of permanent failure:
    Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (state 14).
    Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:40 AM
  • Oops, so sorry, it's chrisberingb [AT] live [DOT] com

    Saturday, November 29, 2008 9:16 PM
  • Ronnie, I really commend you on your utter patience in these responses after reading this thread to its entirety.

    I, like everyone else, came here to find out about the latest dragon to arise from Microsoft which everyone feels a need to slay before it even gets completely developed.  Too many people forget that Windows has been a project which has included so many bumps and hiccups along the way that some of these ideas are actually finally feasible to create with today's technology and advance the platform to nothing more than just a more glitzy and glamorous version of Win9x or XP.

    Personally, I think this idea to expand on the WinSxS idea is an interesting one to say the least, as I've been very familiar with the DLL Hockeysticks problem from the older Windows 3x, Win9x, and ME, also with some inside of XP itself.

    Allowing the mega software giants like Adobe, Oracle, Norton, and other such companies that offer a broad suite of software to use a shared and universally component store for their multitudes of software should reduce the scale of their installations some with these manifests being available for them to create once, include all of their common libraries that would be needed, and then be able to easily update their components while reducing the worry for a simple upgrade in software breaking things.

    All this complaint over hard drive space used is a little valid though when considering the low footprint installations for virtualizations and multiple virtual OS clients.  Perhaps with some tinkering (and enough of a market interest) MS could come out with a specific Vista Virtual OS version that doesn't require the constant use of the SxS folder, but instead could create a few copies of it to be spread around the networked servers and SymLink itself up to that, you'd still require the sxs directories, but there aren't nearly as many copies of them.  The major issue I can see there would be availability during a networked failure, but that one is addressable by the business or admins by their placement of the available VirtualSxS locations. I believe that their OS should be the largest piece of "software" on the entire system since it is supposed to offer all of the functionality that its users demand pretty much out of the box. 

    I like the idea of a structured component area in my OS where all of my system files go, and it'll protect the current and KNOWN working versions of a file for a while instead of some developer from a third party deciding that their version of the DLL is what is needed, causing my other program(s) to break in some fashion.  It also helps prevent dll downgrading, which can cause all sorts of fubars on software sharing that resource.

    With all of the demand on MS to come up with an OS that is fast, reliable, secure, stable, gives me all the compatibility I need out of the box with little to no extra work, and can also make a mean cup of coffee, I see this as a potentially positive step towards that direction in a number of those areas once I was fully informed on just what all of those directories contained.  If we removed all of the compatibility from it and forced users to only use software compatible with Vista, it'd greatly reduce the amount of space needed.  You have to realistically phase change in, and the only way to do that is to have a larger operating system out of the box and as long as people continue to chose to develop for these products, this is going to keep the amount of space needed larger than normal.

    If this is a big enough issue then perhaps in SP2 or 3 will it be addressed, or even in a hotfix (but doubtful).  In all honesty, reading the requirements and using the recommended settings has always been the mantra for any OS, as we know that users are going to put additional software on the computer and will want to take full advantage of the OS of their choice. 
    Trying to stuff Vista on drives smaller than 40gb is going to be a hassle until it's addressed just for sanity's sake.  Of course, if that problem's fixed, most people will find another feature or item in Vista that they will all flock to and raise cain about.

    I never really install anything to C: anyways outside of a few tools that are easily reinstalled and don't require much room, so the space isn't an issue to me on an 80gb partition out of 6TB of space, the cost on space is marginal to me given that I've just switched and was simply amazed at how big the install was afterwards.




    Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:38 AM
  • Hello,

    Like all heere, I came here because I encountered a GROWING problem in diskspace. Unlike all here, I know nothng about programming, save that what  I learned in High school , and what I picked up myself in later lif, becaus I like computers. I guess one could say I represent the general public. I have read page 1-4 and 7-9 of this thread.

    I came here to look for a solution, only to find that for me, there are none. I don't want to reboot, or reinstall anything, and after reading this thread, I am afraid to do anything about it .

    I do know that if Microsoft doesn't come whit a solution, my next computer will be an apple. Bite on that.

    My suggestion to microsoft : ask Bill Gates how he started, buy the os from apple, with your hard earned money, adjust it a littlebit and put a stamp on it which says "Microsoft".

    @ Ronnie: I really don't care about any technical explanation. When you buy a car, you expect it to work, don't you ? When it suddenly uses 4 times more gas then you would normally expect, do you want to hear any technical explanation from the manufacturer ? Or hear him say it is your problem ? NO. You want him to fix it. Take the car back , and get one back which performs to ruling standards.
    If you don't get this point, I can safely say Microsoft will not exist in the year 2015, and i will start buying stocks in apple now !

    Bye
    Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:59 PM
  • Patrick

    We do understand the frustration over this issue and you can be assured that Microsoft is listening.

    The problem is that when core design changes are made, such as the Servicing Model and all of the many other components that result in the huge size of the WinSxS folder, it is impossible to change this after the product is released.

    This would mean completely rebuilding the operating system from scratch.

    Like I said, Microsoft is listening. Take the time to read this short article, written by the developers of Windows about some of the the changes they will be implementing in the next version of Windows to help resolve these issues.

    Engineering Windows 7 : Disk Space:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx




    Ronnie Vernon
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience 
    Friday, December 19, 2008 3:05 PM
  • Chris

    Do you have any results on the Winsxs batch file yet?

    Let us know.


    Ronnie Vernon MVP
    Tuesday, December 30, 2008 5:58 AM
  •  

    hmm... all the time the same answers.

     

    I.

    Going there ... somewhere ... to study hours and hours for an answer. This is a very irritating situation that Microsoft introduce into the market, because they launch a Windows version full of bugs and they carefully eliminate the alternative for a choice. For example… the biggest market is the mobility market meaning laptops, pda, Smartphone etc – it will not work with windows xp – witch in my opinion it’s the most stable platform (NT servers excluding) because of drivers. The platform components cannot be installed on windows xp.

     

    So in this way the customer will not have a choice …………….

     

    II.

    Because they are the biggest, they are making the rules. It’s a human nature doing mistakes, but for a big company like Microsoft – can afford some professional answers something like:

     

    Ok, dear customers who cheeps us alive buying our products, we noticed the problem and in maximum 30 days will give you a solution for your problem.

     

    After 30 days, the solution will be available through the media channels for all the Windows users.

     

    Here we are talking about a huge problem not just a minor one. Winsxs – it’s a subject of forum discussion in all the countries – please search on Google and see that. So in this situation we have 2 alternatives:

     

    -          moving from windows to linux or mac

    -          stop buying the last generation of hardware PCs and continue working on XP.

      

    Which will be a official answer on this issue??

    I personally looking for one in the next week.

     

    Because Microsoft it’s a company ONE, but users are MANY – and don’t forget about law….

    Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:29 AM
  • Ronnie, with the exception of one person who was affected by a bug in Microsoft's batch parser, I've had no feedback so far.

    My own experience is that WinsxsLite works just fine.
    I never encountered "dll-hell" on XP, so side-by-side in Vista cures a non-existant problem for me - thus its functionality can be removed.

    Of course, since winsxs encourages stupidity in programming, future software might depend on Microsoft's handholding, and will fail without it under certain circumstances.

    Programmers that give the same name to functionally different libraries are idiots (and, luckily, very few), and I will just have to not buy their software.
    Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:33 AM
  • I did a few tests with Chris batch file. The whole process takes a little bit less than two hours on my pc but it is definitely useful.
    On a fresh vista premium install on a little 16 GB partition (30 GB SSD disk in dual boot), I could save 3 GB.
    The system is running ok. I am waiting for the next windows updates to verify they install correctly.

    Best Regards to the community and special thanks to Chris for his help and work.

    Philippe
    Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:06 PM
  • If anyone is still interested in trying WinsxsLite, they can now get it from Rapidshare:

    http://rapidshare.com/users/6HHIJB

    Chris

     

    Friday, January 30, 2009 2:39 PM
  • New version, WinsxsLite v1.80 is now up.

    Added functionality to relocate folders.

    Enjoy,
    Chris
    Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:44 PM
  • Hi Chris

    I'm sure that by now, with just the information in this thread,  you have seen that the WinSxS component has gone far beyond the DLL Hell problem that it was originally designed to cure.

    I'll give WinsxsLite a try later this week and let you know the detailed results of how it works here.

    Regards,



    Ronnie Vernon MVP
    Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:32 PM
  • Patrick Paul said:

    Hello,

    Like all heere, I came here because I encountered a GROWING problem in diskspace. Unlike all here, I know nothng about programming, save that what  I learned in High school , and what I picked up myself in later lif, becaus I like computers. I guess one could say I represent the general public. I have read page 1-4 and 7-9 of this thread.

    I came here to look for a solution, only to find that for me, there are none. I don't want to reboot, or reinstall anything, and after reading this thread, I am afraid to do anything about it .

    I do know that if Microsoft doesn't come whit a solution, my next computer will be an apple. Bite on that.

    My suggestion to microsoft : ask Bill Gates how he started, buy the os from apple, with your hard earned money, adjust it a littlebit and put a stamp on it which says "Microsoft".

    @ Ronnie: I really don't care about any technical explanation. When you buy a car, you expect it to work, don't you ? When it suddenly uses 4 times more gas then you would normally expect, do you want to hear any technical explanation from the manufacturer ? Or hear him say it is your problem ? NO. You want him to fix it. Take the car back , and get one back which performs to ruling standards.
    If you don't get this point, I can safely say Microsoft will not exist in the year 2015, and i will start buying stocks in apple now !

    Bye

    I agree with you Patrick.  I also bought a laptop with 120 gig hard drive that should be plenty.  The winsxs file is already over 9 gig.  I can't believe Microsofts response is buy a bigger hard drive.  Totally unacceptable.

    Friday, February 06, 2009 12:26 PM
  • Hi Chris,

    What a lot of work, well done. I have tried the .bat file and results are as follows:

    All tested in Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V virtual machines.  All are Vista Ultimate. All runs completed normally.

    1) New Vista 32 bit SP1 with components removed using Vlite image build. Languages, drivers etc removed, no updates after SP1.

    2) New Vista 32 bit SP1 standard install, no updates after SP1.

    3) Vista 64 bit system, converted from physical disk to VMWare image then to VHD and attached to the above cut-down Vista 32 bit install to run the winsxslite.bat file against the VHD. SP1 and all updates.

    ****************************************************************************

    Summary results of bytes free as reported by  winsxslite.bat


    Vlite reduced 32bit

    Normal SP1 32bit


    year old 64bit SP1 and updates








    After

    18,618,904,576


    15,985,037,312


    21,660,659,712


    before

    18,073,190,400


    14,682,898,432


    15,910,514,688



    ----------------------


    ----------------------


    -----------------------


    Saving

    545,714,176

    3.02%

    1,302,138,880

    8.87%

    5,750,145,024

    36.14%


     


    Following the winsxslite.bat run on both the 32 bit installs, windows update was enabled and all current updates installed without problems.


    Of somewhat more interest is the result after I ran all updates and installed .net 3.5 on the full Vista 32bit 2) above. I got back a lot of space again, all taken up just from updates to the operating system and .net 3.5



    Normal SP1 32bit


     


    re-run after updates etc

     




     

    After

    14,792,343,552


     

    Before

    12,519,645,184


     




     


    2,272,698,368

    18.15%

     

     


     

    I have yet to decide if I will run it on my live 64 bit Vista installation!

     

    The detailed data from screen dumps is available if required.


    Hope that helps


    Roger

    Bracknell, UK


    Thursday, February 12, 2009 6:03 PM
  • @Ronnie Vernon


    hm okay ronnie. you thing winsxs is well designed and works correct in vista. so there are a few questions from my site:


    1.) for example you make a clean install of vista ultimate x64 with sp1 included in the installation medium. so after the installation you search through the winsxs folder for folders which include 6000 in the name because 6000 is part of the bulidstring from vista without sp1.


    you'll find tons of folders with names like amd64_adpu320.inf.resources_31bf3856ad364e35_6.0.6000.16386_de-de_bf47b2421ddf586f

    after that search again through the winsys folder for folders which include 6001 in the name because 6001 is part of the buildstring from vista without sp1.

    again you'll find tons of folders with names like amd64_adpu320.inf.resources_31bf3856ad364e35_6.0.6001.18000_de-de_c17e743e1aca6943

    so why are there folders in my installation with buildstrings that points to a plain vista? i installed vista with sp1 included in the installation medium. there is no need for files an resources prior sp1.


    2.) is there a way to fire this cleanup service, which make cleanup tasks in c:\windows\winsxs\temp\pending... folders, manually?


    3.) i think the winsxs is a potential security hole.

    fo example. someone creates an application which needs an special systemdll xxx in version yyy. this special dll is in the systemwide side-by-side cache in the winsxs folder. month later microsoft releases a security update because systemdll xxx in version yyy is insecure and let you gain admin access from remote. so whats going on now? there is an application on the system which is correctly installed and needs an insecure system dll. in your theory of side-by-side cache it is not allowed that someone, specially a cleanup service from vista, remove this special dll from the side-by-side cache. otherwise some applications got broken.

    so where is there a benefit from a system wide dll cache?

    Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:00 PM
  • hey Chris Bering

    first thx for ur gr8 tool

    do u think u could improve it so its will work on image like wim

    thx
    Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:13 PM
  • Not likely.

    Why do you need it ?
    Can't you just ghost an install ?
    Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:09 PM
  • well i have 2 reasons but i guess there more


    1.help to decrease time of installation
    2.and the hdd will  be less defrag  [vs  post-install ]

    i find wim much simple then ghosting
    Friday, February 20, 2009 2:31 PM
  • Do you have waik ?
    Do you know if Imagex /mount supports hardlink creation ?

    If so, the modifications needed to WinsxsLite should be minor.

    Friday, February 20, 2009 3:36 PM
  • Turns out, WinsxsLite doesn't need changing.
    I've put a guide up at http://rapidshare.com/users/6HHIJB

    Let us know how it goes, and if you can install the resulting .wim image.
    Friday, February 20, 2009 10:22 PM
  • Turns out, WinsxsLite DOES need changing.

    Stand by...

     

    Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:08 AM
  • WinsxsLite v1.86 is now up, with support for folders as root.
    This means a .wim can be extracted to a folder, modified by WinsxsLite, and then recaptured to a .wim.
    Just set :ROOT=D:\somefolder in config.txt.
    Saturday, February 21, 2009 5:46 PM
  • Hi Chris,

    I have followed this thread for a while now. Very interested in your batch. I went to the location on Rapidshare but was unable to locate the documentation. Would like to hear if there are positive or negative results in dealing with Vista 64.

    Cheers!
    Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:02 AM
  • Hi CovertPizza

    I have used it on my year-old install of Vista Ultimate 64bit, it works fine and gave me back about 5.5GB space. All OK so far. I used version 1.86

    I have also tried 32 Bit Ultimate in a Hyper-V virtual machine with the SP2 RC (just released by Microsoft on MSDN).

    The first test was to install SP2 RC then run winsxs, it worked fine and gave back about 3GB

    The second test was to run winsxs on 32 bit SP1, then install SP2 RC then run winsxs again, with similar results, in other words SP2 RC installs fine on a SP1 install with winsxs previously run.

    Both are fully functional after the testing, so far.

    Note to Chris, the version 1.86 is great with the 'debug' info.

    Roger
    Bracknell UK
    Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:29 PM
  • Hi Chris,

    I have found a small problem with version 1.86 (not tested earlier versions). It occurs when using Portable Apps.

    Portable Apps startup menu is messed up after Phase 2 run either on Vista SP1 or SP2 RC and on both 32 and 64 bit.
    The Portable Apps application selector menu should be white background with program icon and black text. After Phase 2 is run, the program names appear in a black rectangle on the white background and the text is invisible (black on black). If you hover the mouse pointer over a program, the back rectangle greys slightly so the black text is visible (just) and the program can be selected as normal.

    I have tested this 3 times and each time it occurs after Phase 2, but works correctly after Phase 1. It occurs on both physical and Hyper-V Vista installs.

    Reinstalling the Portable Apps menu, or installing for the first time after Phase 2 is complete, makes no difference to the problem.

    I have some screen prints which I could send you if needed, let me know where.

    Roger
    Bracknell, UK
    Sunday, March 01, 2009 2:00 PM
  • Hi!

    Where can I download StringConverter v1.2? It's needed by WinsxsLite but I can't open http://www.gbordier.com/gbtools/stringconverter.htm
    Sunday, March 01, 2009 6:06 PM
  • Wow, Roger, you've done some serious testing. Thanks, I appreciate it a lot.

    It's possible the problem lies with phase 1, and is just revealed by phase 2.
    So, do you think you could try omitting phase 1, and see the effect on portable apps ?

    Regarding stringconverter.exe - I've put it up temporarily at rapidshare.

    Thanks again,
    Chris
    Sunday, March 01, 2009 7:14 PM
  • Thanks a lot, Chris! Now everything works!
    Sunday, March 01, 2009 7:29 PM
  • Chris,

    It happens if Phase 2 is run on its own.

    lot of testing, yes, but using hardware virtualisation and having 4 cores and 8GB mem makes it easy to test :-). Happy to help in any way, and this is a good way of adding value to ALL your hard work.

    Roger
    Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM
  • Roger, what if you disable the removal of languages (clear the ":PHASE 2 LANGUAGE PRIORITIES" section in config.txt) ?
    Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:57 PM
  • Chris,

    It still give the same error when the language section is deleted from config.

    Roger
    Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:39 PM
  • I am getting the error "missing subinacl.exe command" when I try to apply, I have downloaded and run subinacl.msi.  Is there something more that I have to do?

    Thanks,
    Monday, March 02, 2009 3:09 AM
  • Make sure subinacl.exe is in the system path (\windows , \windows\system32) or in the same folder as WinsxsLite. Otherwise the program can't find it.
    Monday, March 02, 2009 12:40 PM
  • Chris,
      error message can not find ln.exe(LN.exe).  I have searched entire drive for this file and can not find it?
    Friday, March 06, 2009 2:54 PM
  • Marmed911, read the included help.
    Saturday, March 07, 2009 8:47 AM
  • Hello Chris,


    My winsxs folder is 11,7GB according to Windows. The system partition is only 40GB, so i would love to give WinsxsLite a go at it.
    I downloaded v1.86 from rapidshare. But upon reboot -after choosing option [A]uto start- it fails to Relocate Folders:

    "SeDebugPrivilege : Access is denied.

    WARNING :Unable to set SeDebugPrivilege privilege. This privilege may be required."


    I did log in with an admin account. Any ideas ?
    Sunday, March 08, 2009 3:52 AM