Vista SP1
- Thread starter "Nerve-Damage"
- Start date
ShootMyMonkey
Veteran
I think the real knee-jerk comes not so much from people having a lack of space but the idea that that much stuff is working data in order to solve the issues they're trying to cover in one service pack. What does it say when a patch to fix a series of issues warns you, "yeah, to fix these issues, we have data filling up at least 7 GB depending on your CPU and which version of Vista you have."
Granted, it's not as though all of that amounts to n files replaced, and some of that is simply due to the fact that you'll have both the unpacked data and the archives sitting around at once, but it still suggests that there's a massive amount of broken stuff that needs to be wiped.
Granted, it's not as though all of that amounts to n files replaced, and some of that is simply due to the fact that you'll have both the unpacked data and the archives sitting around at once, but it still suggests that there's a massive amount of broken stuff that needs to be wiped.
ShootMyMonkey
Veteran
That's all well and good, but it's really unlikely that they'd have "issues" regarding content like icons or themes, so chances are that this is mostly binaries regarding actual dlls, libraries, executables, runtime environments, IL files, and so on. There's no reason to expect all those things to involve huge amounts of data. Even if you assume that you've got an archive, the unpacked data, the original data, a backup of the original, the CLR and bytecode and JIT-ted binaries of whatever it is that's currently executing, 7 GB is still a lot.
If SP1 was 75% full of theme updates and new wallpapers and a bunch of advertisement videos and all sorts of "we suggest you buy this Microsoft product -- to aid you in this, we've found your credit card number and we're now placing orders for this software because you're too lazy to do it yourself" kinds of things, then I'd say so many GB isn't that unusual. Of course, if that was the case, there would be little to no reason for there to be a size difference between 32 and 64-bit machines (unless a 64-bit machine owner is required to buy additional stuff and view additional ads).
About the only way it would look halfway acceptable is if the process involves making a complete backup of the entire working OS installation, which is where the install takes place, and then when the install is actually complete, you remove the old copy of the OS and the new temp install folder replaces it. That could probably account for 6 out of 7 GB easily. When you think about it, this isn't entirely impossible, but it's not really the first thing you'd think of. If you were writing an OS update patch yourself, I doubt you'd do it this way unless you knew there was a high risk of failure in the course of the update.
In any case, it is true that the fact that it's Microsoft is the automatic point of concern since they don't exactly have a history of creating bug-free software. Everything we might actually like that they make is still horribly buggy and annoying, and simply accepted as the way things are.
If SP1 was 75% full of theme updates and new wallpapers and a bunch of advertisement videos and all sorts of "we suggest you buy this Microsoft product -- to aid you in this, we've found your credit card number and we're now placing orders for this software because you're too lazy to do it yourself" kinds of things, then I'd say so many GB isn't that unusual. Of course, if that was the case, there would be little to no reason for there to be a size difference between 32 and 64-bit machines (unless a 64-bit machine owner is required to buy additional stuff and view additional ads).
About the only way it would look halfway acceptable is if the process involves making a complete backup of the entire working OS installation, which is where the install takes place, and then when the install is actually complete, you remove the old copy of the OS and the new temp install folder replaces it. That could probably account for 6 out of 7 GB easily. When you think about it, this isn't entirely impossible, but it's not really the first thing you'd think of. If you were writing an OS update patch yourself, I doubt you'd do it this way unless you knew there was a high risk of failure in the course of the update.
In any case, it is true that the fact that it's Microsoft is the automatic point of concern since they don't exactly have a history of creating bug-free software. Everything we might actually like that they make is still horribly buggy and annoying, and simply accepted as the way things are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you ever installed VS2005? Or its SP1?
There must be something seriously wrong with microsoft's installer.
I mean, for the VS2005 SP1, it downloads a fairly large file, extracts *everything* to the %temp% folder (there's a ton of small files in there) and only then it starts to install if you're lucky. Both extracting and the install itselft take a comparable amount of time to complete
I can understand the need to keep extra data to rollback the install if needed but surely there are better ways than what they're using now...
Well you've met one now. i allways put the o/s on a seperate partition
and ive been so glad i did
no doubt you have a huge drive in a single parttiton with the o/s and all your programs + games on it
what happens if you need to format + re-install windows
if i'd have done it your way i would of either had to re-install 150plus games or delete windows manually
my way i just format c: re-install xp
then its just a case of putting my shortcuts back
Blazkowicz
Legend
you can even backup the shortcuts 
an another benefit is you can defrag it quickly (still I do that rarely)
with a 4GB OS partition I've never had trouble besides nasa worldwind's cache in program files eating more than one gig. no system restore, no hiberfil.sys, nothing in my docs nor on the desktop, and my program files is 1.5GB. swap and temp are on another partition. (but before that I had the temp in the OS partition)
off course vista wouldn't fit but I can't afford it, don't need it and would I get it I'd get a new hard drive anyway.
an another benefit is you can defrag it quickly (still I do that rarely)
with a 4GB OS partition I've never had trouble besides nasa worldwind's cache in program files eating more than one gig. no system restore, no hiberfil.sys, nothing in my docs nor on the desktop, and my program files is 1.5GB. swap and temp are on another partition. (but before that I had the temp in the OS partition)
off course vista wouldn't fit but I can't afford it, don't need it and would I get it I'd get a new hard drive anyway.
you can backup registry entries as well (a lot of programs re-create them on first run anyway)
the only time your buggered is with programs that put files is system32 (like anti virus programs)
with games your usually good to go (with the exception of a few games that sneakily put files in :\Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Application Data\ which is hidden by default)
the only time your buggered is with programs that put files is system32 (like anti virus programs)
with games your usually good to go (with the exception of a few games that sneakily put files in :\Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Application Data\ which is hidden by default)
cloudscapes
Regular
I don't have Vista but say I did, I partition usually around 20-30 gb for my C: (system) drive. I use that for windows, windows scratch disk and all the program file (except games), along with some additional things. Had I had vista, I would of needed to repartition my drive.
Hopefully they had thought of letting the user choose a different partition for SP1's swapping...
Hopefully they had thought of letting the user choose a different partition for SP1's swapping...
Yeah, i really wonder what the heck is Microsoft doing lately, my concern with VS8 SP1 is not the space required, but the time it takes to install it, i stopped the installation after it seemed struck for 30 minutes (not because i can't wait, but because i thought it was indeed struck), what the heck, my box isn't super duper quad core, but it can render pretty Radiosity pictures in 30 minutes. I've seen ppl talking about it around and even on core duos for some ppl it took like 1 hour.
http://blogs.msdn.com/heaths/archive/2006/10/06/VS-2005-SP1-Takes-a-While-to-Install.aspx
seems to explain why (i understand but it's still WTF), and has a nice suggestion on how to make it install faster.
in comments:
"My mileage: 20 hours to patch just Visual C++ with code analysis on Pentium III, 1.5 GB of free disk space required."
Just bloody retarded.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blazkowicz
Legend
Code:
MSI (s) (58:40) [04:28:57:387]: SOFTWARE RESTRICTION POLICY: C:\DOCUME~1\user\LOCALS~1\Temp\ZNW2EA\VS80sp1-KB918525-X86-Beta-ENU.msp has a digital signature
MSI (s) (58:40) [04:36:33:562]: SOFTWARE RESTRICTION POLICY: C:\DOCUME~1\user\LOCALS~1\Temp\ZNW2EA\VS80sp1-KB918525-X86-Beta-ENU.msp is permitted to run at the 'unrestricted' authorization level.ha! MICROS~1 is back
Code:MSI (s) (58:40) [04:28:57:387]: SOFTWARE RESTRICTION POLICY: C:\DOCUME~1\user\LOCALS~1\Temp\ZNW2EA\VS80sp1-KB918525-X86-Beta-ENU.msp has a digital signature MSI (s) (58:40) [04:36:33:562]: SOFTWARE RESTRICTION POLICY: C:\DOCUME~1\user\LOCALS~1\Temp\ZNW2EA\VS80sp1-KB918525-X86-Beta-ENU.msp is permitted to run at the 'unrestricted' authorization level.
ha! MICROS~1 is back
Actually those are from XP, I believe, since it points to Documents and Settings folder, which in Vista is replaced by Users folder
Similar threads
