Reinstall windows 7 sp1 shrunk in size

I installed win 7 32 bit version just over 2 years ago at home and
tried to keep my system clean with regular use of Revo Unistaller.
Pictures and videos are kept in a different partition


I bought an OEM version of windows 7 32 bit with SP1 for my office
computer.

I used that same DVD to reinstall win 7 32 bit on my home computer and
reinstalled ALL
the programs I had on my old installation.

The old Acronis true image size was 11.8 gigs and the new one is 6.2 gigs

I am very pleased as I use a SSD for my operating system drive.

Why such a huge difference?

FD

On 26/11/2011 9:29 AM, FD wrote:
> I installed win 7 32 bit version just over 2 years ago at home and tried
> to keep my system clean with regular use of Revo Unistaller. Pictures
> and videos are kept in a different partition
>
>
> I bought an OEM version of windows 7 32 bit with SP1 for my office
> computer.
>
> I used that same DVD to reinstall win 7 32 bit on my home computer and
> reinstalled ALL
> the programs I had on my old installation.
>
> The old Acronis true image size was 11.8 gigs and the new one is 6.2 gigs
>
> I am very pleased as I use a SSD for my operating system drive.
>
> Why such a huge difference?
>
> FD

Here's what I've inferred from various sources and past experience:

One difference is that the OEM versions have far fewer drivers included
than the ones that come with your ready-to-use computer. Since you can
"update during install" if you wish, that's not a problem: Windows will
find drivers for printers, etc. if needed, sometimes during the first
reboot.

It also depends on the version: they have different software bundles.
Eg, Windows Media Center is included in Home Premium IIRC, but not in
Basic, nor in Pro (which is intended for business, not entertainment... ;-))

Also, you no doubt had a bunch of updates on your home computer, and
each update leaves behind its install package (a hidden file). Even
though those packages are compressed, they add up. You can unhide them,
remove the system attribute, and delete them if you want to reclaim the
space.

Finally, SP ("service update") combines all prior updates into a single
package, and replaces the affected files. Thus, an install DVD with SP1
may have a larger total size than the original OS, but will still be
significantly smaller than the older but updated Windows on your home
computer.

HTH
Wolf K.

On 11/26/2011 8:29 AM, FD wrote:
> I installed win 7 32 bit version just over 2 years ago at home and
> tried to keep my system clean with regular use of Revo Unistaller.
> Pictures and videos are kept in a different partition
>
>
> I bought an OEM version of windows 7 32 bit with SP1 for my office
> computer.
>
> I used that same DVD to reinstall win 7 32 bit on my home computer and
> reinstalled ALL
> the programs I had on my old installation.
>
> The old Acronis true image size was 11.8 gigs and the new one is 6.2 gigs
>
> I am very pleased as I use a SSD for my operating system drive.
>
> Why such a huge difference?
>
> FD

Are you aware that Acronis doesn't align partitions correctly? This
slows down writing to the SSD (or even hard drives) because it has to
write to two sectors instead of each one. To fix this, you need to align
the partition to the sectors.

Paragon (the latest utilities anyway) does this automatically. Acronis I
heard has an utility to do this too, but I never tried their utility
yet. Windows 7 in my experience installs it aligned. Although once
something like Acronis restores it, now it is misaligned.

NOTE TO ADVANCED USERS: You can tell if it is aligned or not with a disk
editor. If the partition starts at sector 63, it is wrong. If it starts
at 1024 or 2048, then it is right.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 11/26/2011 09:56 AM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 26/11/2011 9:29 AM, FD wrote:
>> I installed win 7 32 bit version just over 2 years ago at home and tried
>> to keep my system clean with regular use of Revo Unistaller. Pictures
>> and videos are kept in a different partition
>>
>>
>> I bought an OEM version of windows 7 32 bit with SP1 for my office
>> computer.
>>
>> I used that same DVD to reinstall win 7 32 bit on my home computer and
>> reinstalled ALL
>> the programs I had on my old installation.
> >
>> The old Acronis true image size was 11.8 gigs and the new one is 6.2 gigs
>>
>> I am very pleased as I use a SSD for my operating system drive.
>>
>> Why such a huge difference?
>>
>> FD
>
> Here's what I've inferred from various sources and past experience:
>
> One difference is that the OEM versions have far fewer drivers included
> than the ones that come with your ready-to-use computer. Since you can
> "update during install" if you wish, that's not a problem: Windows will
> find drivers for printers, etc. if needed, sometimes during the first
> reboot.
>
> It also depends on the version: they have different software bundles.
> Eg, Windows Media Center is included in Home Premium IIRC, but not in
> Basic, nor in Pro (which is intended for business, not entertainment...
> ;-))

I had no idea. Which edition/version is best for the smallest on-disk
installation size? Is anything like FD's 6.2 gigs possible with 64 bit
as well as 32?


TIA

bad sector wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 09:56 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>> On 26/11/2011 9:29 AM, FD wrote:
>>> I installed win 7 32 bit version just over 2 years ago at home and tried
>>> to keep my system clean with regular use of Revo Unistaller. Pictures
>>> and videos are kept in a different partition
>>>
>>>
>>> I bought an OEM version of windows 7 32 bit with SP1 for my office
>>> computer.
>>>
>>> I used that same DVD to reinstall win 7 32 bit on my home computer and
>>> reinstalled ALL
>>> the programs I had on my old installation.
>> >
>>> The old Acronis true image size was 11.8 gigs and the new one is 6.2
>>> gigs
>>>
>>> I am very pleased as I use a SSD for my operating system drive.
>>>
>>> Why such a huge difference?
>>>
>>> FD
>>
>> Here's what I've inferred from various sources and past experience:
>>
>> One difference is that the OEM versions have far fewer drivers included
>> than the ones that come with your ready-to-use computer. Since you can
>> "update during install" if you wish, that's not a problem: Windows will
>> find drivers for printers, etc. if needed, sometimes during the first
>> reboot.
>>
>> It also depends on the version: they have different software bundles.
>> Eg, Windows Media Center is included in Home Premium IIRC, but not in
>> Basic, nor in Pro (which is intended for business, not entertainment...
>> ;-))
>
> I had no idea. Which edition/version is best for the smallest on-disk
> installation size? Is anything like FD's 6.2 gigs possible with 64 bit
> as well as 32?
>
>
> TIA
>

If it was me, I'd be comparing file lists, for the two WINSXS folders
on the computer.

Or, use something like SequoiaView, to visually locate something large
which is tipping the balance on size.

http://w3.win.tue.nl/nl/onderzoek/on.../sequoiaview//

Most disk utilities, won't take hard links into account, and can double
count space. Doing a backup to a .vhd file, should give a true estimate
of file system size, or doing properties on the partition itself, may
give the right answer. Checking by doing properties on individual folders,
will give the wrong answer. And that's a trap many fall into, when they
say "my WINSXS folder is 29GB", in fact the files in there are hard linked
all over the place, and deleting WINSXS would only save 500MB (worth of file
pointers). Mounting the partition in Linux (don't touch anything!), will
show that things in WINSXS can have as many as four references to the same
file data clusters. So the same sectors of data, can be in use by four
file pointers. Linux doesn't do a perfect job of presenting this info,
as I've had trouble while experimenting, actually verifying Windows
and Linux think the same thing of that C: partition.

Windows 7 is an attempt, to use all the features of NTFS to the max,
for better or worse. It means doing maintenance for home users like
me, is a bit of a trial (don't touch anything!). My innocent little
experiments, have led to a non-booting laptop, twice. Make sure you
have a good backup to an external drive, before you get too curious.

Paul

On 26/11/2011 11:53 AM, bad sector wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 09:56 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>> On 26/11/2011 9:29 AM, FD wrote:
[...]
>>> Why such a huge difference?
>>>
>>> FD
>>
>> Here's what I've inferred from various sources and past experience:
>>
>> One difference is that the OEM versions have far fewer drivers included
>> than the ones that come with your ready-to-use computer. Since you can
>> "update during install" if you wish, that's not a problem: Windows will
>> find drivers for printers, etc. if needed, sometimes during the first
>> reboot.
>>
>> It also depends on the version: they have different software bundles.
>> Eg, Windows Media Center is included in Home Premium IIRC, but not in
>> Basic, nor in Pro (which is intended for business, not entertainment...
>> ;-))
>
> I had no idea. Which edition/version is best for the smallest on-disk
> installation size? Is anything like FD's 6.2 gigs possible with 64 bit
> as well as 32?
>
>
> TIA

I don't know which is the smallest size, probably Basic. But I wouldn't
select the version based on installation size, but on features you want.
The most important is the software. Security is a given, IMO the only
reason to upgrade to W7 IMO is security. (footnote)

If the laptop is for business, then W7 Pro is probably best. But if all
you need is an OS that will run your favourite and familiar software,
then Basic is probably OK, too. If you are worried about using up a lot
of space on an SSD, get a nice little external drive, and use it for
data storage. Most apps can be configured to store their documents etc
anywhere you specify. FWIW, I bought two 500GB external drives for us,
they are about the size of a 25-pack of cigarettes but thinner. They
cost $120CAD each, but are cheaper now.

32 vs 64 bit: I don't know how much the installed size differs. IMO, if
you don't need 64 bits, go for 32. 64 bits is an advantage only if the
program has been optimised for 64 bits. Very few have been. AFAIK 64
bits is an advantage only in high powered applications such as media
creation, massive data-bases, or server farms. The 64 bit Windows don't
run older software as well as the 32 bit versions.

HTH
Wolf K.

(footnote): I moved to W7 earlier this year because Tiger Direct offered
a deal I couldn't refuse: OEM W7 Pro plus an OEM terabyte drive for
$120, plus cost of cable, or under $150 including shipping and tax.
Either the drive or the OS was free, depending on your POV. ;-) O'wise
I'd be moving to Home Premium about now. I've d/l MS's free media apps,
they work just fine for my limited purposes.

On 11/26/2011 02:48 PM, Wolf K wrote:

>
> I don't know which is the smallest size, probably Basic. But I wouldn't
> select the version based on installation size, but on features you want.
> The most important is the software. Security is a given, IMO the only
> reason to upgrade to W7 IMO is security. (footnote)

Thanks, I got Ultimate but it seems to install too much stuff. I hardly
ever use windows and XP more than satisfied my needs. But I made the
mistake of buying an asus laptop recently and installing/using XP on it
is a RPIA (they don't even provide any XP drivers). That's how I came
upon w7 ..much more of a disk hog by the looks of things.

bad sector wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 02:48 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know which is the smallest size, probably Basic. But I wouldn't
>> select the version based on installation size, but on features you want.
>> The most important is the software. Security is a given, IMO the only
>> reason to upgrade to W7 IMO is security. (footnote)
>
> Thanks, I got Ultimate but it seems to install too much stuff. I hardly
> ever use windows and XP more than satisfied my needs. But I made the
> mistake of buying an asus laptop recently and installing/using XP on it
> is a RPIA (they don't even provide any XP drivers). That's how I came
> upon w7 ..much more of a disk hog by the looks of things.
>

In my original post I did not make one thing clear.

My initial windows 7 installation was an OEM Home Premium 32 bit on a no
name computer assembled by PC Village in Toronto.

Over 2 years I have added and deleted many programs and used Revo
Uninstaller
and Crap Cleaner liberally.

I made a Acronis image.

I then formatted the disk and did a fresh installation of win 7 home
Premium 32 bit OEM version WITH SP 1. I then installed all the
programs I had on my old windows 7 installation and then made a new image.

It surprised me that this image was much smaller.

However some one on this thread may have given me the answer.

I had on a number of occasions mucked up my win 7 and used Acronis true
image to restore my system. The larger file might have something to do
with Acronis

I did my initial experiment of 32 bit vs 64 installation with and
upgrade that Microsoft sold
at a huge discount. The installation size of 64 bit is about 1/3
larger than 32 bit

FD

>
> Are you aware that Acronis doesn't align partitions correctly? This
> slows down writing to the SSD (or even hard drives) because it has to
> write to two sectors instead of each one. To fix this, you need to align
> the partition to the sectors.
>

Thanks for that information.

I did some reading on alignment on Acronis web site and am downloading
2012 trial version

I have purchased 2011 version which does align to SSD but did not like
the interface
so have been using 2010

FD