[DonDodge]

I did a fresh, clean install of Vista from a HP recovery partition. Upon finishing the install and readying the computer to do the updates, C: drive properties reported 22.6 gb of disk space used. This, of course, includes all the requisite HP bloatware and crippleware stored in the image.

I did all the Windows updates, then the Norton Internet Security updates and a Java update. Over dialup, I downloaded around 120 mb of data. After all the installations and reboots, C: drive properties reports 33.7 GB of used space. How is it possible that an estimated 120 mb of update downloads will eventually consume over 11,000 mb of hard drive space?

I know this is really happening because one of the Windows updates failed and had to be downloaded again. It was a 5 mb file. Downloading and installing this file resulted a net increase of 0.5 GB in used space. A 5 mb download eventually consumed over 500 mg of hard drive space.

What's up with this? I know these downloads are probably compressed but by a factor of 100? I didn't know compression was that effective.

In another similar issue, I've been tracking what happens when I uninstall the unwanted HP bloatware. I properly uninstalled (through the Control Panel) 181 mg of their garbage. This resulted in net loss of over 600 mb of disk space. I guess this means that when HP crap is uninstalled, self-preservation mode kicks in and it rewrites itself several times elsewhere on the hard drive. How can I fix this without goofing up the Windows installation? I've noticed this before and manually cleared out some of this junk but Vista doesn't seem to like it and it always causes problems that result in a complete reinstall. If I remember correctly, excising this HP crap requires taking ownership of certain folders and problems with Vista begin. I'm beginning to think that all of HP's junk is like a cancer in the machine that's all intertwined into the OS itself.

The only uninstall I've done that didn't eat a huge amount of additional disk space was a 2.65 gb game called "The Sims". Uninstalling this actually dropped the used space by 2.5 gb.

[calvin-c]

What format do you have? One of the advantages of NTFS over FAT32 is more efficient storage of small files. (And that's only *one* of the advantages.) Yes, I've seen 'compression' like that although it's always been with images when I've seen it. Like an archive holding 1000 4KB icons compressed to 20KB, then expanding to take 32,000KB on disk.

[DonDodge]

It's NTFS with default sector size.

[DaveA]

Remember that MOST downloads are COMPRESSED files and after the install is run, the files take up a MUCH larger space on the drive.

[calvin-c]

Don's original post acknowledged that, Dave, his question was if it was possible that it would be 100x greater.

[Elvandil]

There is also a new restore point created each time you install updates. Run Disk Cleanup and remove all your restore points except the last and a lot of space will be regained.

[DonDodge]

Ah, this makes some sense. There were seven restore points created by installing the full complement of updates and three more that were created by uninstalling HP crap. I know Vista is a huge bloated beast compared to XP but my XP computer has 249 restore points saved up that only total 4.4 gb. I sure can't visualize 10 Vista restore points adding up to anything even close to that. Since I don't have linux installed on the Vista machine, I don't know how to verify it without raping all the permissions other than deleting all the relevant files.

Still, an increase in used disk space from 120 mb downloaded to over 11 gb after update installation seems ridiculous no matter how large the restore files are and how effectively the update files are compressed. There's monumental difference between these two numbers.

I know the Windows updates are fairly well compressed because Windows Update reported 67.5 mb to be downloaded. I believe that number the system reports is the uncompressed size since only 30 mb of incoming traffic was required to get those downloads. I don't have any idea how well compressed Norton and Java updates could possibly be but regardless, I just don't see how 120 mg of downloads could blow out to over 11 gb installed. I suspect it has something to do with the hack job HP does on their OEM Vista OS

Anyway, cleanly and safely getting rid of all the HP garbage is my biggest concern. I find folders filled with this trash all over the hard drive even though the applications themselves are uninstalled.

Vongo, for instance, was a 15 mb installation that resulted in a 1600 mb increase in used disk space once it was "uninstalled". I find remains of the vongo virus in SwSetup, Program Files, ProgramData and several other places without even breaking into Application Data or Documents and Settings.

[DonDodge]

Well, shut my mouth. Mystery solved. I got rid of those 10 restore points and cut the used space from 32.3 gb down to 18.8 gb. 13.5 gb for 10 restore points. Sheesh.

I created a new one that cost 0.6 gb of space.

[Elvandil]

Yes, I was going to say that Vista's restore points are a lot more comprehensive than XP's and take a lot more space. That's why I cut my reserved space for them and usually only keep 2 or 3 at a time.

[Elvandil]

By default, 15% of the volume size is reserved for the shadow copy. But you don't need to keep that size, or even keep the restore points on the same volume.

vssadmin list shadowstorage
will tell you how much space is reserved for your points. I changed mine to 3 GB's:

vssadmin resize shadowstorage /For=C: /On=C: /MaxSize=3000MB

[DonDodge]

Thanks. I've learned a lot today. Vista is quite confusing for a person who still thinks in MS-DOS.

I think I'll move my restore holding area to that godforsaken HP recovery partition. There's several gb of free space going to waste on it.

[Elvandil]

OK. But now that you have seen how large the points actually are, don't short-change yourself on space. Vista saves a lot more in restore points than XP did, including the shadow copies of changed files. So though it doesn't hurt to set a limit, set it large enough. It sets aside 15% or 30% of the remaining space on a drive, whichever is smaller, by default. So System Restore (or "Volume Shadows" as they are more appropriately called in Vista) will never fill up a drive. You'll need to blame something else for that.

[DonDodge]

Interesting system. Thanks for the info. For the time being, I've followed your lead and set a 3 GB size on the C: drive. Turns out I have only 1.83 GB available on the D: partition.

I suppose I should see about setting a limit on my XP machine. 249 restore points is nuts. There's no reason I'll ever need to restore to a point that far back

[Elvandil]

Yes, that is nuts. Most of those are so far back that they wouldn't work anyway since too much has changed on the system.

And you don't need anywhere near as much space. You can use the second page of Disk Cleanup in XP, too, to delete all the points except the last one.

I have Acronis True Image and make a complete system backup automatically twice a week, but I keep SR running because the problems sometimes are not so serious that I need to recover the whole drive and I want some recovery option that is not so drastic.

[managed]

IMO another factor here is the rapid increase in hard drive space.
It's hard to see why so much space is needed sometimes but the fact is that space is available now and "GB's are the new MB's" (at least going from DOS to Vista that's almost true )