Vista, SSD, winsxs

[DaveF]

So, I'm got a 120GB SSD (2 x 60GB, raided), with a 60GB partition for XP and a 60GB partition for Vista.

All I've done so far is install all the updates and my standard software base (Office and VS2005).

Current space used in Vista: 25GB (v.s. 10GB on XP - identical software install).

Of which 10 gig is WinSxS.

To be honest, this is annoying, but I can live with it. But I am worried about how much WinSxS is going to grow in the future - when SP2 comes out it seems like that will probably add another 4-5GB.

What are you guys with 30GB Vertex's doing? ("Not using Vista" will, I expect, be the answer).

 

[shine]

I used vlite on my Vista install so I could remove anything I didn't need and reduce the overall size.

 

[PiKe]

This tells you all about it: http://www.winvistaclub.com/f16.html

 

[DaveF]

I used vlite on my Vista install so I could remove anything I didn't need and reduce the overall size.

Thing is, I could live with the original size (I had a basically "unused" Vista install on the HD that I looked at when deciding that). I didn't anticipate the level of bloat that would come afterwards.

I didn't realise vLite made that much difference; on current form, I'd be very edgy about installing to a single 30GB SSD under any circumstances.

I've just moved from a P4 running XP on a HD to an i7 running Vista64 on SSD. Although I think I'm reasonably clued up about computers, and I spent a lot of time reading forums before making decisions, it's amazing how many things like this have come up after the event.

It's been a very expensive learning experience, TBH. (Largely my own fault, of course). At least I didn't make the mistake (that I was tempted by) of going for a single 60GB Vertex drive instead of 2 slower Samsungs.

 

[DaveF]

This tells you all about it: http://www.winvistaclub.com/f16.html

Yeah I've seen it. To give a somewhat unfair summary:

"You can't change it,
it's all for your own good,
it's well worth the disk space it uses,
and no, you can't move it to another HD".

Which is essentially unacceptable in an era of SSD drives.

That's not me griping - as I say, it's only an annoyance, given my set up. But you can imagine how someone who's just bought an X25-E as a systems disk is going to feel about it. (I'm sure I saw a post from someone in that situation, and it wasn't pretty. I certainly saw frantic posts from people with $2000 SSD laptops which were effectively unusable).

The thing is, I keep seeing suggestions about how you can stream it down a bit (some suggestions coming with risks), but it seems to me a better solution would be for MS to allow it to live on another drive. Not that I expect it to happen.

Edit: I know it also says "it doesn't use as much space as you think". My impression, both from my own machine and reading around the issue, is that if you basically have a completely clean Windows install, then yes, most of the folder contents will be hard links to existing files. But all the increases after that are "real" - because there really are 2 copies of (different versions of) the files on your drive.

 

[PiKe]

Compress it.

 

[Lanz]

Windows 7 is the same, my newish install has a winsxs of 5GB already.

You could put in on another drive yourself using mount points.
i.e C:\Windows\winsxs = harddisk 2

 

[DaveF]

Windows 7 is the same, my newish install has a winsxs of 5GB already.

You could put in on another drive yourself using mount points.
i.e C:\Windows\winsxs = harddisk 2

Does that actually work though? I've seen a few posts from people who've done something like this, and there's usually some caveat like "Windows update doesn't work any more".

[Again, I'm not actually that concerned for myself - I figure 60GB will suffice, and to be blunt, if it doesn't, it will be "bye bye Vista")].

 

[Lanz]

I dont see why it wouldn't work. I've done simular things using windows system files, for example I moved the live tv buffer that's located in a hidden system folder to a ram disk using volume mounts.

30GB for Vista/Win7 is ok still I think, just as long as you dont install loads of crap all the time. Anyway, by the time Win7 comes out, we'll have decent 60GB+ drives for under £100 I bet.

 

[DaveF]

I dont see why it wouldn't work. I've done simular things using windows system files, for example I moved the live tv buffer that's located in a hidden system folder to a ram disk using volume mounts.

I just heard people saying they'd done it and it didn't work, and the MS people on a couple of "Why is winsxs so big" discussions said you couldn't move it. e.g.

Windows Vista only supports the WinSxS directory on the physical drive in its originally installed location

I don't need to risk it, so I don't think I will. If winsxs keeps growing at its current rate I may need to reconsider...

30GB for Vista/Win7 is ok still I think, just as long as you dont install loads of crap all the time.

Pretty tight though. There are quite a few people with laptops who've said basically "I tried to be careful about what I installed, but over the course of a year..."

Besides, there seem to be enough posters who want to install half their favourite games onto the SSD...

Anyway, by the time Win7 comes out, we'll have decent 60GB+ drives for under £100 I bet.

Possibly. But with SSD, I think most people really wanting to be focussing on a faster drive, not a larger one. On the other hand, I expect that the technology (parallelism) will move in such a way that 60GB drives are significantly faster than 30GB ones, in which case the point is moot.

 

[HEADRAT]

Do a search for WinsxsLite, helps reduce the size of the winsxs directory.

 

[miniyazz]

Move/shrink the pagefile, and consider disabling hibernation. Depending on how much system RAM you have installed, they could easily take up 12GB between them.