WINSXS folder grows exponentially

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.

"JEWboy" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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.


Take ownership of winsxs folder and use compression. Compress everything
except the files needed to boot. You will get several gigs back easy.

"Tae Song" <> wrote in message
news:B3152288-AD28-428E-BFBC-...
>
> "JEWboy" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> 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.
>
> Take ownership of winsxs folder and use compression. Compress
> everything except the files needed to boot. You will get several
> gigs back easy.

Inferring from the link at winvistaclub, compression is a no-no too.
All winsxs files should be left exactly as, and where, they are found.

And how would you even determine which which ones are needed for
booting?