Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Fullerton, CA, USA
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I have been following the enthusiastic response to Windows 7 and am surprised that a 20-40 GB boot size qualifies as a more compact OS. I have subscribed to the Windows XP approach of slimming down the OS size by:

    * removing the redundant I386 files
    * moving all data (like e-mail, financial, etc.) to a data partition
    * installing those parts of a program (like NERO) that I will use
    * cleaning out install b/u as allowed
    * move the temporary internet storage to a RAM disk

    This approach has made possible a Windows XP boot size of 3.4 GB in a 9 GB partition.

    Creating a full disk image of the boot partition with TI-11 requires less that 60 seconds.

    Restoring a full disk image takes less than 2 minutes.

    I'm happy to hear the enthusiasm for windows 7, but in awe of the disk space required, which though inexpensive these days, requires substantial imaging times.

    Web

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    12,560
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    BUT, you will find that this size will grow was you add programs, even on a different drive. There seems to be MORE data placed within the OS drive from the programs than there were before. So your REAL small OS drive may just start haunting you a lot sooner than expected.

    Now running HP Pavilion a6528p, with Win7 64 Bit OS.

  3. #3
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Fullerton, CA, USA
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveA View Post
    BUT, you will find that this size will grow was you add programs, even on a different drive. There seems to be MORE data placed within the OS drive from the programs than there were before. So your REAL small OS drive may just start haunting you a lot sooner than expected.
    Thanks Dave. I've seen the growth from continued hot patches. Some of the growth is redundant and can be taken care of. It's easy to become obsessed with small size and to "throw out the baby with the bathwatter". After a bit you develop a perpective that allows you a no compromise size that fits your requirements.

    The thing that I'm looking for is a reaction to the claimed small size of windows-7 and an approah that allows one to control the size and growth.

    Web

  4. #4
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,572
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,057 Times in 926 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Long View Post
    Thanks Dave. I've seen the growth from continued hot patches. Some of the growth is redundant and can be taken care of. It's easy to become obsessed with small size and to "throw out the baby with the bathwatter". After a bit you develop a perpective that allows you a no compromise size that fits your requirements.

    The thing that I'm looking for is a reaction to the claimed small size of windows-7 and an approah that allows one to control the size and growth.

    Web
    Part of the size reported is incorrect because the size of C:\Windows\winsxs is calculated incorrectly. There are many hard links used in the winsxs structure that Windows Explorer counts as individual instances of each file when in fact there is only one.

    Joe
    Joe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •