locked
WinSXS Improvement?

    General discussion

  • Will there be any improvement to WinSXS stop bloating up. With SSD we are back to the days where storage space is not a commodity.
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:37 AM

All replies

  • Winsxs Folder Size

    The Winsxs folder is not a normal folder and the size shown is deceptive. You should not try to delete files from it or move it. You can read more about it below.
     

    The Secret Of Windows Windows 7 Winsxs Folder:
     http://www.winvistaclub.com/f16.html
     
    What is the WINSXS directory and why is it so large?
     http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/archive/2008/09/17/what-is-the-winsxs-directory-in-windows-2008-and-windows-vista-and-why-is-it-so-large.aspx

    Sunday, September 25, 2011 5:41 PM
  • It's not a WinSXS problem.  WinSXS is doing just what it should be doing - keeping multiple versions of libraries you install so that your existing apps continue to work properly after you install new software.

     

    I'm thinking you might have chosen to go with SSD technology a bit too soon if it's not providing you adequate space to install and maintain the OS.  If you still find it expensive to outfit a system with enough SSD space to run it, remember that it was your choice not to buy terabyte sized spinning drives, which are the norm.  The difference in cost is simply what you have to pay to have the additional performance and physical reliability.

     

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 25, 2011 6:31 PM
  • @iwod: Yes. In versions of Windows prior to Windows 8, the WinSxS store holds the files for every version of every feature in your OS. There are a few reasons for this:

    1. updates can be installed in any order (so you can skip an update you don't want)
    2. updates can be uninstalled (so you can revert to the previous version)
    3. you can install and remove features without needing your Windows DVD

    Note that WinSxS does make extensive use of hard links so the size you see in Explorer is actually much larger than the true size of the directory on disk.

    However, in Windows 8, you can use DISM to remove the payload of certain packages from WinSxS. The features can be re-enabled later by supplying an installation source such as a Windows DVD.

    Check dism /online /remove-package /? for more information. Enjoy!


    Monday, September 26, 2011 4:46 PM
  • However, in Windows 8, you can use DISM to remove the payload of certain packages from WinSxS. The features can be re-enabled later by supplying an installation source such as a Windows DVD.


    Finnaly! Currently you have to hack Windows a bit to remove buildin feature packages. I did this to remove the Hyper-V guest drivers, DVD maker and other things I don't use.

    Also please add a way that users can see which updates are superseded and can be removed to save HDD space. It makes no sense to keep all old cumulative IE updates in WinSxS folder.
    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Monday, September 26, 2011 7:38 PM
  • Also please add a way that users can see which updates are superseded and can be removed to save HDD space. It makes no sense to keep all old cumulative IE updates in WinSxS folder.

    Glad you like it!

    Have you looked at dism /online /cleanup-image /spsuperseded by any chance? Caution: once you do this you can't uninstall the service packs.

    Monday, September 26, 2011 9:08 PM
  • Have you looked at dism /online /cleanup-image /spsuperseded by any chance? Caution: once you do this you can't uninstall the service packs.


    I know this, but I used a Sp1 integrated ISO:

    de_windows_7_ultimate_with_sp1_x64_dvd_u_677306.iso

    to setup my Windows 7. I want a scheduled task (or something like this) which checks for old and superseded updates and removes them to save HDD space. Such updates are no longer needed and only blow up the WinSxS folder because the files from that Update are no longer used. Currently I do this myself by checking the technet pages to see which other updates they superseed so that I can remove the older updates to have my WinSxS as small as possible.

    This is really important if you use a small SSD drive!


    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Monday, September 26, 2011 9:39 PM
  • Wow finally! This will free up some space and give users the choice back. But dism /online /cleanup-image /spsuperseded only seems to apply to a service pack. What about hotfixes? We want the cleanup ability for regular hotfixes so older versions of components do not continue to consume tons of space. Please add this ability. Something like dism /online /cleanup-image /hotfixessuperseded

    • Edited by xpclient Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:09 AM
    Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:02 AM
  • Can't say anything about future releases, but your feature request has been noted. Keep in mind this feature hasn't been documented yet (and is therefore unsupported), even though it is available for testing in the developer preview release.

    Thanks for the feedback!

    Wednesday, September 28, 2011 4:06 PM
  • @Andre.Zeigler: "I want a scheduled task (or something like this) which checks for old and superseded updates and removes them to save HDD space."

    You mean HDD, or SSD, or both? Assuming SSD, what capacity would be enough for this to become an non-issue for you?

     

    @xpclient: "We want the cleanup ability for regular hotfixes so older versions of components do not continue to consume tons of space."

    An alternative would be more regular service pack releases. If Windows service packs were released half as often as Chrome or Firefox browsers get a major version update, your request would become largely redundant.

    Microsoft; why 18+ month cycle for OS service packs? 6 to 9 months would be preferable.

     

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:57 AM
  • There are other folders bloating the system as well:

    Installer and DriverStore on my Windows 7 machine have grown also very large, and we are not entitled to remove files from there either. (Installer 7.6 GB, DriverStore 2 GB - together with the intransparent winsxs folder these make smaller disks full rapidely. On servers this is even more a problem, I have Dell servers gotten with a preconfigured 40 GB system volume, after installing some updates/applications/services there are only about 10 GB still free.

    So let us at least relocate this kind of folders, for which growth cannot be planned, to another drive (internal or external) or a network share.

    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:13 AM
  • @Andre.Zeigler: "I want a scheduled task (or something like this) which checks for old and superseded updates and removes them to save HDD space."

    You mean HDD, or SSD, or both?

    For both. I want it too on my HDD.
     @xpclient: "We want the cleanup ability for regular hotfixes so older versions of components do not continue to consume tons of space."

    An alternative would be more regular service pack releases. If Windows service packs were released half as often as Chrome or Firefox browsers get a major version update, your request would become largely redundant.

    Microsoft; why 18+ month cycle for OS service packs? 6 to 9 months would be preferable.

    Becasue this makes no sense. Servie packs need a lot of testing.

    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:09 PM
  • There are other folders bloating the system as well:

    Installer and DriverStore on my Windows 7 machine have grown also very large, and we are not entitled to remove files from there either. (Installer 7.6 GB, DriverStore 2 GB - together with the intransparent winsxs folder these make smaller disks full rapidely.

    On my german site I wrote how to reduce C:\Windows\Installer size and how to remove old drivers (pnputil) from the DriverStore. I do this after installing new drivers to keep the folder small.
    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:11 PM
  • Becasue this makes no sense. Servie packs need a lot of testing.

    Depends on size of service pack, and number of updates within, which depends on frequency of service packs, and number of testers, etc.

    You think Chrome and Firefox releases don't require a lot of testing?

    Once per 18 to 24 month service packs releases should be considered 'legacy' schedule.

     

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:20 PM
  • %windir%\Installer folder can be kept compressed using NTFS compression and also the MSI baseline file cache size policy setting set to 0% so patches don't bloat it further.

    Patches for Windows Vista/7/8 need to give an option during install time too to not back up files and also another option in DISM to delete superseded patches.

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:28 PM
  • Patches for Windows Vista/7/8 need to give an option during install time too to not back up files and also another option in DISM to delete superseded patches.


    Again you don't understand servicing in NT6.x. There are no backups comapred to the old way. The files are stored in the WinSxS folder and hardlinks are created in the destination folders.
    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:38 PM
  • The offorts are too high what you suggest. A Sp between 12-18 months is ok.

    Chrome and FF (rapid development) are no SP, they combine features + bugfixes and there is no comaptiblity check for older interfaces.

    A software which passed the Logo Test woith RTM should wotk with Sp2, too ;) In XPSp2 MSFT made a new Windows and broke a lot of software (becasue of the DEP/NX Bit).


    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:42 PM
  • "%windir%\Installer folder can be kept compressed using NTFS compression and also the MSI baseline file cache size policy setting set to 0% so patches don't bloat it further."

    My impression is that NTFS compression ratio is generally very poor, to the point that almost no one uses it. I could be completely wrong about this (hope so), but if CRs are no better than the benchmarking results i read pre-XP, is compressing %windir%\Installer really worth your time?

    Microsoft; why is NTFS compression ratio so poor? I can't even remember the algorithm used, but if it works transparently to applications, why not change the algorithm to something more time/space affective?

    xpclient, won't setting installer folder size to 0 affect MSI repairs? Again, is it worth it?

    Generally speaking, yourself and Andre seem to be talking the approach of or wanting to replace hardware with software*. Ex - smaller drives, bigger administrative effort. I usually prefer the opposite approach - replace software with hardware, where *software = any relatively high-level operation.

     

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:54 PM
  • Again you don't understand servicing in NT6.x. There are no backups comapred to the old way. The files are stored in the WinSxS folder and hardlinks are created in the destination folders.


    I don't understand why you take pride in belittling others but when updates are installed, new files are hard linked but older components remain on the system, they do not get actively deleted from the component store. So what I was saying an option while installing updates to delete the older components - which was equivalent to not backing up older components in XP - the effect would be same - free up disk space. Sadly, you chose to nitpick instead of understanding the point.
    Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:58 PM
  • "%windir%\Installer folder can be kept compressed using NTFS compression and also the MSI baseline file cache size policy setting set to 0% so patches don't bloat it further."

    My impression is that NTFS compression ratio is generally very poor, to the point that almost no one uses it. I could be completely wrong about this (hope so), but if CRs are no better than the benchmarking results i read pre-XP, is compressing %windir%\Installer really worth your time?

    Microsoft; why is NTFS compression ratio so poor? I can't even remember the algorithm used, but if it works transparently to applications, why not change the algorithm to something more time/space affective?

    xpclient, won't setting installer folder size to 0 affect MSI repairs? Again, is it worth it?

    Generally speaking, yourself and Andre seem to be talking the approach of or wanting to replace hardware with software*. Ex - smaller drives, bigger administrative effort. I usually prefer the opposite approach - replace software with hardware, where *software = any relatively high-level operation.

     


    On my systems, the size of %windir% is around 2-3 GB (not that big) and I save approximately 700 MB by it. Not much saving either, they can improve the compression ratio by improving the compression algorithm but that would break compatibility/ ability to uncompress with older Windows versions.

    Setting baseline cache size to 0 only affects caching of patches, not the MSIs themselves. So when you re-install an app, you would have to apply the patch again, or when an MSI tries to self-repair itself, you might be prompted for the original patch files location.

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:05 PM
  • Since older component versions are not deleted when updated versions are installed, the older component versions effectively become archived. I think that's what you meant (?), and your arguing that this quasi-archiving is not worth the drive space it is using (especially on SDD). Correct?

     

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:36 PM
  • Andre, it is a little ironic that your aware of the effort required to release a Windows service pack, but then your want to go messing inside WinSxS to save a few hundred MB, even for a HDD. For your systems, all that test effort is partially negated because you are running Windows in a state that has probably never been tested, except by yourself. Why not instead buy a 96GB SDD, rather than a 64GB SSD, and remain standard?

    My point on service packs is that Microsoft can define these however they like. They could package a single hotfix as an SP if they chose to, spend a week or less testing it, and once released we could all reclaim redundant SystemDrive space by running 'DISM ... /spsuperseded' commmand. Perfect! More seriously though, is it not reasonable to suppose that all the effort that has gone into modularizing Windows from Vista on, could result in a more rapid update cycle? And what does cause the update cycle to be apparently so slow anyway, other than a lack of modularity? Compatibility! Which leads me to your next point...

    "A software which passed the Logo Test woith RTM should wotk with Sp2, too ;) In XPSp2 MSFT made a new Windows and broke a lot of software (becasue of the DEP/NX Bit)."

    Generally speaking, i'm inclined to agree on this, although i'm unsure of the extext of this specific issue. If the OS Major.Minor version does not change when an update is released (by definition it won't), then 99.99% of software should remain compatible. Perhaps XP SP2 should have been released as XP R2, and the version number increased to 5.2 or 5.3? I've heard Mark Russinovich say that developers should ignore Major.Minor as a compatibility indicator, but on the other hand MSFT packages MSUs with these numbers. Are they important or not?

     

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:06 PM
  • "...they can improve the compression ratio by improving the compression algorithm but that would break compatibility/ ability to uncompress with older Windows versions."

    Your talking about attempting to decompress/read an NTFS volume compressed using hypothetically different algorithm, on previous Win ver? But wait, hasn't NTFS itself been updated in a way that breaks backward compatibilty, and more than once too? Were they world changing events in terms of the compatibility issues? I don't think your scenario is likely to be common enough to trump the benefits of decent compression ratios - by using a more state-of-the-art compression algorithm - especially (and ironically in your case), for SSDs.

    Microsoft; please introduce vastly improved NTFS compression algorithm/ratios, so we can all run Windows 8 on small solid state drives.

     

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:29 PM
  • I don't understand why you take pride in belittling others but when updates are installed, new files are hard linked but older components remain on the system
    this is not the same as backup from XP. This is removing superseeded updates which I request for years now.
    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:49 PM
  • I don't mess anything. It simply makes no sense to keep tons of file which are never used again. After bothering MSFT since 2008 on connect, they now finally implemented my fixes in Windows 7 Sp1 to no install files for Windows 7 RTM after you installed Sp1 and run DISM to remove the RTM files. This causes a huge WinSxS bloating in Vista.

    And removing updates breaks nothing, only if you use vLite or RT7Lite to delete files and not the coresponding packages you get into trouble. I remove a lot of packages  (Telnet, TFTP, Hyper-V drivers, DVD maker, MSMQ, NFS, SNMP) with DISM on my Windows 7 which I never use and I have no trouble. Yes, MS thought about releasing XP Sp2 as XP R2 because it was a new Windows from the code changes but his is not the topic here.

    You're not working in software business, right? I think you simply have no idea how much impact testing such an large thing like a SP for Windows is.

    That MSU/MUI check the version is the fact that files change in a SP. Install the XP RTM MUI on a XP Sp1 and a lot of parts where english becase some parts changed. This is confusing. So the check if the update/MUI fits to a SP is fine.


    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 3:15 PM
  • "I remove a lot of packages ... with DISM on my Windows 7 which I never use and I have no trouble."

    Great. So for all the time you spent learning/investigating/testing this and persuading MSFT to mend it sloppy ways, how much HD space did you save? Worth it, in hindsight?

    "It simply makes no sense to keep tons of file which are never used again."

    In contrast to your philosophy, mine is: If it ain't broke, let Windows handle it.

     

    "I think you simply have no idea how much impact testing such an large thing like a SP for Windows is."

    Your right. The vast size, scope and complexity of Windows is not within my ability to grasp, nor is the enormous man-hours required to develop and test a service pack.

     

    • Edited by Drewfus Thursday, September 29, 2011 4:04 PM minor edit
    Thursday, September 29, 2011 4:01 PM
  • Andre, I understand your perspective, but wouldn't life get easier for you if you just bit the bullet and bought a bigger SSD?   How much time do you spend doing this extra maintenance?  How much is your time worth?

     

    I purposefully avoided SSDs this last go around when I built up my current workstation, choosing instead to go with two 1 TB RE4 drives in RAID 0 arrangement.  Now for about $300 I have speed AND nearly unlimited space, so I can concentrate on work rather than system maintenance.

     

    -Noel

    Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:06 PM
  •  

    I agree something like  dism /online /cleanup-image /hotfixessuperseded  would be a great idea. Also can you please make it so that explorer knows they are linked files in WinSXS and that they are not actually taking up any extra space. This will make the pie chart on drive properties look like there is more space available.

     

    It would also be nice to have a command which will remove all out-dated/superseeded files, hotfixes, winsxs files for example i my WinSXS folder i have:

     

    amd64_1394.inf_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_59555c0e1c877c53

    amd64_1394.inf_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17690_none_58fadd6c1ccbf3a6

    amd64_1394.inf_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.21772_none_599c1aa335d78e3c

    amd64_1394.inf_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.21817_none_59e1fd8335a26270

     

    Would it be possible to remove v17514, 17690 and 21772 and just keep the latest?

    In an ideal world i would like to completely disable WinSXS and supply a dvd to install features if i need them.
    • Edited by Legolash2o Wednesday, November 16, 2011 6:40 PM
    Wednesday, November 16, 2011 6:34 PM
  • In an ideal world i would like to completely disable WinSXS and supply a dvd to install features if i need them.

    I'm 100% agree with this.

    I'm a power user and I don't want to see hundreds of copies of same DLL file, let me handle all the problems myself, and I can't remember if I ever had one.

     

    I'm sure if this thread would be seen by more people - you'd get more negative feedback on this.

    Speaking for myself - I don't want to upgrade my drive (be it HDD or SSD, whatever) just so operating system could fit in.

    Monday, November 28, 2011 2:17 PM
  • I'm a power user and I don't want to see hundreds of copies of same DLL file, let me handle all the problems myself, and I can't remember if I ever had one.

    Remember how a few decades ago you could only run Windows 3 or 95 for more than a few hours or maybe up to a day before an app or even the entire OS would crash?  And that was on a computer 1000 times slower than what you have now.

    THAT's what happens when you allow DLL versions to mix and match without control in the real world.

    Ever notice that on modern versions of Windows your apps generally keep running as well as they ever did, even when you install other apps?

    You simply can't manage these things all by yourself.  The ever growing WinSXS folder is the price we pay for the legacy of Windows architecture, where the installers for just EVERYTHING felt they had to augment or replace parts of the operating system. 

    This is a small price to pay to be able to still run old software.  Ask any Mac user who had a whole slew of older apps and can no longer run any of them whether greater compatibility would be nice.

    -Noel

    Monday, November 28, 2011 5:54 PM
  • Then I'd like to see some tool for power users that will allow us to manage WinSXS folder.

    Let's say I'm 100% sure that I only need specific DLL version and want to remove all other ones. I could back them up using this tool, store them anywhere else and therefore free up some space.

    Monday, November 28, 2011 8:25 PM
  • How about a command prompt tool which will remove any of the files which have not been accessed/used or will just cleanup the folder to shrink it's size.
    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:34 AM
  • I'd say that I'd be happy to see anything that helps.

    Right now I have to use program called "Winsxs Lite".

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:06 PM
  • Let's say I'm 100% sure that I only need specific DLL version and want to remove all other ones.

    I really don't want to be argumentative, but HOW can you be 100% sure?  That's the crux of the problem.  The dependencies simply aren't exposed to us - they're defined by developers of applications, which you mix and match freely on your system.

    Old apps often don't get uninstalled properly before newer versions are overlaid.  Thus our systems become ever-accumulating trash bins of apps and data, and because it's all such a mess it's not really feasible to predict what components will be needed again in the future.  Do you normally uninstall software you don't use any longer, or do you just leave it there?

    And there IS a practical limit...  Just provide a large enough space for Windows to grow into and there's no problem.  A 1 TB drive C: is large enough; the max 2 TB bootable size is more than large enough.  In 2+ years of hard professional Windows 7 use I've accumulated 700GB on my 2 TB drive C:, with 13 GB under the winsxs folder.

    If the SSD(s) you choose to install don't provide sufficient space, then YOUR CHOICE not to spend more to populate your system with sufficient storage is at the real root of the problem.

    -Noel

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:22 PM
  • "A 1 TB drive C: is large enough"

     

    Even if only 25% of it is used for the system - that's just insane.

    In the days of Windows XP the biggest size my windows folder had was around 5 GB, plus maximum 10 GB for program files. Even if you multiply this by 4, 60 this is still less than 250.

    One of my drives is 150 GB and I don't use it only for system. And I don't understand why system won't allow me to manage winsxs folder when I can manage almost every other system folder.

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:44 PM
  • I advise you to stop living in the past.  2 TB of (spinning) disk storage costs what, a hundred bucks nowadays?

    I don't condone Windows being a bloated monster, but it's just silly to spend more than a few seconds thinking about something that's solvable this inexpensively.  If your computer isn't up to running Windows 7 then don't run Windows 7.  There are many that are.

    -Noel

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:39 PM
  • If you don't condone with this, then I guess you're agree that we need some tool to handle this?

    Not all of windows users are just mindless consumers with little to no knowledge.

    I liked in XP that I could tune much stuff, and since Vista all familiar places got messed up to be more suitable for average user. And I still don't like this.

    So, why not have something that power users would like?

     

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:05 PM
  • I have no problem with tools to help with tuning; I use many myself.  But the total footprint for the winsxs area on my main workstation has grown no further than 13 GB in all the time I've used it.  If you're having serious space problems, do you really thing trimming off a few GB from winsxs is going to make all the difference?

    Don't look now but Microsoft IS catering to the mindless consumer.  They apparently care little about power users, lest they wouldn't foist something like Metro on us.  Hell, they've even removed the ability to set the sizes of the UI elements on the desktop in Windows 8, and have even dumbed-down Task Manager.  You really think they're going to put serious effort into a complex tool to help you manage the DLLs used by various installed software versions?

    -Noel

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:21 PM
  • "...is going to make all the difference?"

    Honestly? Yes.

     

    "They apparently care little about power users"

    Well that's sad then. Good I still have a copy of XP.

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:47 PM
  • There are some files in WinSXS which are linked to System32 files, even though there is only one copy of this file on the disk itself, at least get Windows to recognize that and show the correct disk space usage so it should displays alot less.

     

    Not everyone can afford $100....

    Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:33 PM
  • why can not microsoft .. include a utility which removes the extra files ... WE DON'T NEED THAT WINSXS folder ... pleezzz give us tool to remove it if we want to .. 

    we will create a backup of our system through a external tool . if we want to make our system safe (windows system backup also sucks big time) u can not restore ur system on a different harddrive from system image !!

    so please don't waste out HD space .. u didn't give HD as a gift with windows ..  !!

     

    Friday, January 20, 2012 4:23 AM
  • @ nastoorjin

    You can already do this. I used it to remove Defender from Windows 8 because Defender dramatically slows down the PC.

    In Wi7 I removed the Hyper-V drivers, DVD creator, Telnet (Server, client) and other things I don't need.

     


    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Friday, January 20, 2012 11:46 AM

  • I agree something like  dism /online /cleanup-image /hotfixessuperseded  would be a great idea. Also can you please make it so that explorer knows they are linked files in WinSXS and that they are not actually taking up any extra space. This will make the pie chart on drive properties look like there is more space available.

     

    It would also be nice to have a command which will remove all out-dated/superseeded files, hotfixes, winsxs files for example i my WinSXS folder i have:

     

    amd64_1394.inf_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_59555c0e1c877c53

    amd64_1394.inf_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17690_none_58fadd6c1ccbf3a6

    amd64_1394.inf_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.21772_none_599c1aa335d78e3c

    amd64_1394.inf_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.21817_none_59e1fd8335a26270

     

    Would it be possible to remove v17514, 17690 and 21772 and just keep the latest?

    In an ideal world i would like to completely disable WinSXS and supply a dvd to install features if i need them.
    +1
    Monday, January 23, 2012 7:29 AM
  • In an ideal world i would like to completely disable WinSXS and supply a dvd to install features if i need them.

    If your WinSxS folder contains only installed components, then WinSxS is not taking up any extra space (aside from updates for installed features) because the files are merely hardlinks to their counterparts elsewhere in the file system.

    Features that are not needed can be Disabled with Payload Removed by supplying the /Remove flag to DISM. This removes the component completely from WinSxS (including updates IIRC) and the feature can be reinstalled from an external installation source.

    Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:57 AM
  • not needed can be Disabled with Payload Removed by supplying the /Remove flag to DISM.


    There is no such remove flag. Is this new to Windows 8?

    Simply give us a tool which removes superseded updates and old drivers from the driverstore. Only removing older cummulative IE updates + older drivers (with pnputil) saved over 2GB space!!!


    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:15 PM
  • Yes, the Remove flag is new to Windows 8. 

    dism /online /disable-feature /featurename:<name> /remove

    or [PowerShell]

    Disable-WindowsOptionalFeature -Online -FeatureName <name> -Remove

    should do the trick.


    Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:42 PM
  • ok, this works :) Can this be used offline with a mounted WIM?
    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:23 PM
  • From my understanding this is an explorer issue. The way that windows reports the hard links. There is a utility that you can run that gives you the true size of the winsxs folder mine reports 7gb but it is actually around 500 meg.

    The issue is if explorer is going to report it incorrectly and you plan to sell 16gb tablets with win8. Wont the end user run out of space in rapid time

    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 1:04 PM
  • The issue is if explorer is going to report it incorrectly and you plan to sell 16gb tablets with win8. Wont the end user run out of space in rapid time

    No, because the "disk free space" is still tracked and reported correctly.
    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:04 PM