Microsoft XP Bloat

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Aug 28, 2007.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    I have just re-installed XP in a laptop for a friend. The setup is
    fairly typical including typical XP Office Pro including Publisher.

    When I first looked at it, C Drive had 5.5G used including about 1G in
    'Document and Settings' - anti-virus and MS security updates were
    probably not up to date.

    After restoring from the rescue CD's, 3.6G of HD was used, but following
    installing SP2 updates, this increased by 1.4G. Installing Office,
    Publisher and a printer driver took an extra 0.7G, an AVG anti-virus a
    further 1G.

    Now the breath-taking part - Installing all AVG and MS security updates
    took another whopping 1.1G, now making this 6.3G in all.
    Restoring user data (timmed down) increased this to 7G.

    It seems that MS security updates (including SP2) bloated the original
    3.6G of XP (including sundry items provided by the laptop maker) up to
    about 5.6G.

    Talk about bloat!

    I suspect that I am going to have to install some extra RAM in he laptop
    to compensate for the higher memory demands of a bloated OS.

    By comparison, my Linux system I use day to day, the operating system,
    Gnome, Open Office and other application software occupies a measley 2.5G.
    peterwn, Aug 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    news:46d38736$...
    >
    > It seems that MS security updates (including SP2) bloated the original
    > 3.6G of XP (including sundry items provided by the laptop maker) up to
    > about 5.6G.
    >


    What you're calling "bloat" is mostly backup files. Copies of the system
    updates (check your Windows folder) take up about 300Mb -- you don't have to
    keep these if you don't want, but unless you're really stretched for disk
    space I don't see what the objection would be.. As for the rest of the 2Gb,
    I think you'll probably find that most of it is consumed by your System
    Volume Information folder, which contains all the System Restore files.
    Since new restore points are created by default after every new system
    update or application installation, it's easy for this folder to get big in
    a hurry. This can be controlled under System Restore settings, or else you
    can just periodically run the Disk Cleanup utility and select the option to
    delete all but the latest System Restore file.
    impossible, Aug 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peterwn

    Dogboy Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > I have just re-installed XP in a laptop for a friend. The setup is
    > fairly typical including typical XP Office Pro including Publisher.
    >
    > When I first looked at it, C Drive had 5.5G used including about 1G in
    > 'Document and Settings' - anti-virus and MS security updates were
    > probably not up to date.
    >
    > After restoring from the rescue CD's, 3.6G of HD was used, but following
    > installing SP2 updates, this increased by 1.4G. Installing Office,
    > Publisher and a printer driver took an extra 0.7G, an AVG anti-virus a
    > further 1G.
    >


    So your saying that AVG (a 16ish Meg self extracting exe) takes up 1GB
    of space on your computer once installed? It only takes up 35 megs on
    my machine.

    Have you considered things like system restore filling up its allocated
    space?
    Dogboy, Aug 28, 2007
    #3
  4. peterwn

    Mutlley Guest

    peterwn <> wrote:

    >I have just re-installed XP in a laptop for a friend. The setup is
    >fairly typical including typical XP Office Pro including Publisher.
    >
    >When I first looked at it, C Drive had 5.5G used including about 1G in
    >'Document and Settings' - anti-virus and MS security updates were
    >probably not up to date.
    >
    >After restoring from the rescue CD's, 3.6G of HD was used, but following
    >installing SP2 updates, this increased by 1.4G. Installing Office,
    >Publisher and a printer driver took an extra 0.7G, an AVG anti-virus a
    >further 1G.
    >
    >Now the breath-taking part - Installing all AVG and MS security updates
    >took another whopping 1.1G, now making this 6.3G in all.
    >Restoring user data (timmed down) increased this to 7G.
    >
    >It seems that MS security updates (including SP2) bloated the original
    >3.6G of XP (including sundry items provided by the laptop maker) up to
    >about 5.6G.
    >
    >Talk about bloat!
    >
    >I suspect that I am going to have to install some extra RAM in he laptop
    >to compensate for the higher memory demands of a bloated OS.
    >
    >By comparison, my Linux system I use day to day, the operating system,
    >Gnome, Open Office and other application software occupies a measley 2.5G.


    You can most likely get ride of some of the bloat by deleting the
    updates files in the windozs directory. The ones
    $NtUninstallKB900485$ etc..
    Mutlley, Aug 28, 2007
    #4
  5. In message <h%MAi.61331$Xa3.41285@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:

    > As for the rest of
    > the 2Gb, I think you'll probably find that most of it is consumed by your
    > System Volume Information folder, which contains all the System Restore
    > files. Since new restore points are created by default after every new
    > system update or application installation, it's easy for this folder to
    > get big in a hurry.


    Seems like a brute-force approach to recovering from bad installations,
    doesn't it? Linux systems can cope with this without creating
    multi-gigabytes worth of restore points.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 28, 2007
    #5
  6. peterwn

    Greg House Guest

    On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:24:14 +1200, peterwn <> wrote:

    >I have just re-installed XP in a laptop for a friend. The setup is
    >fairly typical including typical XP Office Pro including Publisher.
    >
    >When I first looked at it, C Drive had 5.5G used including about 1G in
    >'Document and Settings' - anti-virus and MS security updates were
    >probably not up to date.
    >
    >After restoring from the rescue CD's, 3.6G of HD was used, but following
    >installing SP2 updates, this increased by 1.4G. Installing Office,
    >Publisher and a printer driver took an extra 0.7G, an AVG anti-virus a
    >further 1G.
    >
    >Now the breath-taking part - Installing all AVG and MS security updates
    >took another whopping 1.1G, now making this 6.3G in all.
    >Restoring user data (timmed down) increased this to 7G.
    >
    >It seems that MS security updates (including SP2) bloated the original
    >3.6G of XP (including sundry items provided by the laptop maker) up to
    >about 5.6G.
    >
    >Talk about bloat!
    >
    >I suspect that I am going to have to install some extra RAM in he laptop
    >to compensate for the higher memory demands of a bloated OS.
    >
    >By comparison, my Linux system I use day to day, the operating system,
    >Gnome, Open Office and other application software occupies a measley 2.5G.




    Clear out the stuff that MS leaves behind..

    Documents and Settings Username
    Local Settings Temp folder.


    Windows Temp folder and all files in the Windows folder starting with $

    Also use IE Tools/Internet Options remove the Temp Internet files.

    Why not use MS Works instead of the Office and Publisher or Sun Office thing..



    Or just get Crap Cleaner..


    http://www.ccleaner.com/download

    ...
    Greg House, Aug 28, 2007
    #6
  7. peterwn

    Saftey First Guest

    On Aug 28, 4:59 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <h%MAi.61331$Xa3.41285@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:
    >
    > > As for the rest of
    > > the 2Gb, I think you'll probably find that most of it is consumed by your
    > > System Volume Information folder, which contains all the System Restore
    > > files. Since new restore points are created by default after every new
    > > system update or application installation, it's easy for this folder to
    > > get big in a hurry.

    >
    > Seems like a brute-force approach to recovering from bad installations,
    > doesn't it? Linux systems can cope with this without creating
    > multi-gigabytes worth of restore points.


    I can understand your frustration, but if you are so upset over this
    (which I don't really get as I find XP just fine) why not load Linux
    on the laptop and be done with it?
    Saftey First, Aug 28, 2007
    #7
  8. peterwn

    Gordon Guest

    On 2007-08-28, Saftey First <> wrote:
    > On Aug 28, 4:59 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> In message <h%MAi.61331$Xa3.41285@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> > As for the rest of
    >> > the 2Gb, I think you'll probably find that most of it is consumed by your
    >> > System Volume Information folder, which contains all the System Restore
    >> > files. Since new restore points are created by default after every new
    >> > system update or application installation, it's easy for this folder to
    >> > get big in a hurry.

    >>
    >> Seems like a brute-force approach to recovering from bad installations,
    >> doesn't it? Linux systems can cope with this without creating
    >> multi-gigabytes worth of restore points.

    >
    > I can understand your frustration, but if you are so upset over this
    > (which I don't really get as I find XP just fine) why not load Linux
    > on the laptop and be done with it?
    >

    Cause his friend may want XP. See original post
    Gordon, Aug 28, 2007
    #8
  9. On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:41:39 +0000, Saftey First wrote:

    > I can understand your frustration, but if you are so upset over this
    > (which I don't really get as I find XP just fine) why not load Linux on
    > the laptop and be done with it?


    Some of us simply do not use any M$ software at all on our own computers.

    Why should we when there are known security and performance issues to do
    with using M$ software?


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
    Jonathan Walker, Aug 28, 2007
    #9
  10. peterwn

    Jerry Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > I have just re-installed XP in a laptop for a friend. The setup is
    > fairly typical including typical XP Office Pro including Publisher.
    >
    > When I first looked at it, C Drive had 5.5G used including about 1G in
    > 'Document and Settings' - anti-virus and MS security updates were
    > probably not up to date.
    >
    > After restoring from the rescue CD's, 3.6G of HD was used, but following
    > installing SP2 updates, this increased by 1.4G. Installing Office,
    > Publisher and a printer driver took an extra 0.7G, an AVG anti-virus a
    > further 1G.
    >
    > Now the breath-taking part - Installing all AVG and MS security updates
    > took another whopping 1.1G, now making this 6.3G in all.
    > Restoring user data (timmed down) increased this to 7G.
    >
    > It seems that MS security updates (including SP2) bloated the original
    > 3.6G of XP (including sundry items provided by the laptop maker) up to
    > about 5.6G.
    >
    > Talk about bloat!
    >
    > I suspect that I am going to have to install some extra RAM in he laptop
    > to compensate for the higher memory demands of a bloated OS.
    >
    > By comparison, my Linux system I use day to day, the operating system,
    > Gnome, Open Office and other application software occupies a measley 2.5G.


    Why would you need more RAM because of files on the HDD?
    Jerry, Aug 28, 2007
    #10
  11. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    Jerry wrote:
    > peterwn wrote:


    >
    > Why would you need more RAM because of files on the HDD?


    Because I strongly suspect that XP with SP2 and other security updates
    takes up more RAM space than original XP. I do not know for sure, it is
    just a suspicion. I also suspect that it is consuming more machine
    cycles as well.
    peterwn, Aug 28, 2007
    #11
  12. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On 2007-08-28, Saftey First <> wrote:
    >> On Aug 28, 4:59 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>> In message <h%MAi.61331$Xa3.41285@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> As for the rest of
    >>>> the 2Gb, I think you'll probably find that most of it is consumed by your
    >>>> System Volume Information folder, which contains all the System Restore
    >>>> files. Since new restore points are created by default after every new
    >>>> system update or application installation, it's easy for this folder to
    >>>> get big in a hurry.
    >>> Seems like a brute-force approach to recovering from bad installations,
    >>> doesn't it? Linux systems can cope with this without creating
    >>> multi-gigabytes worth of restore points.

    >> I can understand your frustration, but if you are so upset over this
    >> (which I don't really get as I find XP just fine) why not load Linux
    >> on the laptop and be done with it?
    >>

    > Cause his friend may want XP. See original post


    Alas, this is the case. The matter was carefully considered with a
    decision to persist with XP for the next few years then review.
    peterwn, Aug 28, 2007
    #12
  13. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    > news:46d38736$...
    >> It seems that MS security updates (including SP2) bloated the original
    >> 3.6G of XP (including sundry items provided by the laptop maker) up to
    >> about 5.6G.
    >>

    >
    > What you're calling "bloat" is mostly backup files. Copies of the system
    > updates (check your Windows folder) take up about 300Mb -- you don't have to
    > keep these if you don't want, but unless you're really stretched for disk
    > space I don't see what the objection would be.. As for the rest of the 2Gb,
    > I think you'll probably find that most of it is consumed by your System
    > Volume Information folder, which contains all the System Restore files.
    > Since new restore points are created by default after every new system
    > update or application installation, it's easy for this folder to get big in
    > a hurry. This can be controlled under System Restore settings, or else you
    > can just periodically run the Disk Cleanup utility and select the option to
    > delete all but the latest System Restore file.
    >
    >


    Therein lie the problems. SP2 wasted alot of time creating backup files
    which I did not need, surely it should have asked first.
    peterwn, Aug 28, 2007
    #13
  14. In message <46d3d55f$>, peterwn wrote:

    > The matter was carefully considered with a
    > decision to persist with XP for the next few years then review.


    I would suggest the next review happen in not more than two years' time.
    Microsoft has stated it will stop resellers from offering XP from the end
    of January, I believe it is. So if you continue using XP after that, it
    will be a system you will no longer be able to replace (not with a new one,
    anyway).
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 28, 2007
    #14
  15. peterwn

    Dogboy Guest


    >>

    >
    > Therein lie the problems. SP2 wasted alot of time creating backup files
    > which I did not need, surely it should have asked first


    Not sure what your doing but whenever I install SP2 it does ask.
    Dogboy, Aug 28, 2007
    #15
  16. peterwn

    Geoff Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > I have just re-installed XP in a laptop for a friend. The setup is
    > fairly typical including typical XP Office Pro including Publisher.
    >
    > When I first looked at it, C Drive had 5.5G used including about 1G in
    > 'Document and Settings' - anti-virus and MS security updates were
    > probably not up to date.
    >
    > After restoring from the rescue CD's, 3.6G of HD was used, but
    > following installing SP2 updates, this increased by 1.4G. Installing
    > Office, Publisher and a printer driver took an extra 0.7G, an AVG
    > anti-virus a further 1G.
    >
    > Now the breath-taking part - Installing all AVG and MS security
    > updates took another whopping 1.1G, now making this 6.3G in all.
    > Restoring user data (timmed down) increased this to 7G.
    >
    > It seems that MS security updates (including SP2) bloated the original
    > 3.6G of XP (including sundry items provided by the laptop maker) up to
    > about 5.6G.
    >
    > Talk about bloat!


    You have a minute HDD or something ?

    >
    > I suspect that I am going to have to install some extra RAM in he
    > laptop to compensate for the higher memory demands of a bloated OS.


    Why do you draw that conclusion ?

    > By comparison, my Linux system I use day to day, the operating system,
    > Gnome, Open Office and other application software occupies a measley
    > 2.5G.


    Aha. The true intent of the thread revealed. A religous post.

    geoff
    Geoff, Sep 1, 2007
    #16
  17. peterwn

    Geoff Guest

    Jonathan Walker wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:41:39 +0000, Saftey First wrote:
    >
    >> I can understand your frustration, but if you are so upset over this
    >> (which I don't really get as I find XP just fine) why not load Linux
    >> on the laptop and be done with it?

    >
    > Some of us simply do not use any M$ software at all on our own
    > computers.
    >
    > Why should we when there are known security and performance issues to
    > do with using M$ software?


    So why do these people read MS threads ? About as annoying a the Jehovahs
    really. And as rational.

    geoff
    Geoff, Sep 1, 2007
    #17
  18. peterwn

    Geoff Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > Jerry wrote:
    >> peterwn wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> Why would you need more RAM because of files on the HDD?

    >
    > Because I strongly suspect that XP with SP2 and other security updates
    > takes up more RAM space than original XP. I do not know for sure, it
    > is just a suspicion. I also suspect that it is consuming more machine
    > cycles as well.


    With half a clue you could easily find out for yourself. It not like SP2
    came out yesterday.

    geoff
    Geoff, Sep 1, 2007
    #18
  19. On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:59:05 +1200, Geoff wrote:

    >> Why should we when there are known security and performance issues to do
    >> with using M$ software?

    >
    > So why do these people read MS threads ? About as annoying a the Jehovahs
    > really. And as rational.


    I wasn't aware that there were specifically MS types of threads in
    newsgroups.

    When were they invented?


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
    Jonathan Walker, Sep 1, 2007
    #19
  20. peterwn

    Cima Guest

    Jonathan Walker wrote:
    >
    >
    > Some of us simply do not use any M$ software at all on our own
    > computers.
    >
    > Why should we when there are known security and performance issues to
    > do with using M$ software?


    Doesn't stop you from constantly posting MS threads does it, Jonathan Wanker.
    Cima, Sep 1, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eric

    SSH/SSL Code Bloat

    Eric, Feb 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    492
  2. 16bit photoshop files: why do they bloat?

    , Feb 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    434
  3. T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz

    Open Office file bloat

    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Feb 13, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    334
  4. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    printed docs bloat to ~5x the size

    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 13, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    535
    Nomad Damon
    Dec 14, 2004
  5. Mutlley

    Suse Linux 10.1 . Why so much bloat??

    Mutlley, Jun 13, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    363
    Mutlley
    Jun 14, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page