Win 7 64bit on 128SSD

S

Sadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
227
Hi all, I just installed Win 7 64 on my 128SD Drive (C). I have another drive (500gb) (D) that I will use for storage and other programs.

How do I minimize the amount of space Win 7 will take up so that it does not fill up my 128 with useless files/updates. Are there any features that I can disable to save memory, are there any clean up commands i can run to clean up service pack upgrades (similar to vsp1cln.exe for Vista) etc....

Thank you
 
Assuming this is a desktop PC and you don't plan on using hibernate, you can turn off the hibernation file which can take up quite a bit of space:
1. Open the Start Menu, in the search line, type CMD
2. Right click CMD icon that comes up and choose "Run as administrator"
3. Type powercfg -h off and press enter to delete it

Shrink the pagefile to something reasonable. It doesn't need to be 2.5 times the size of your memory; you can set the min and max to 700MB or so and it will be fine. I don't recommend turning off the pagefile entirely as that can possibly make some apps or systems unstable.
Open the Start Menu
Right click Computer
Click Properties
Click Advanced System Settings (it's on the left side)
Under performance click Settings
Go to the Advanced tab
Under Virtual memory click Change
Uncheck the "Automatically manage paging file" box at the top
Select the C: drive
Set the min and max
Click "Set"
Choose Yes for the dialog box
Click OK
Click OK

After you've finished running Microsoft Update repeatedly until everything has been updated, you can delete everything in C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download. That's where Microsoft Update downloads all of its patches before it installs them.

Run the Disk Cleanup app (Start button, in the search bar type Disk Cleanup). Make sure Service Pack Backup Files is checked as well as Windows Update Cleanup. Since you've just installed, a lot of it might not be picked up by Disk Cleanup until later; it may be set to wait a week or a month to delete update files. This is cleaning up stuff that a user cannot clean up manually or in any other way safely.

Get the free version of CCleaner and run it every now and then. Turn off the real-time monitoring; that's a new feature that I think is obnoxious.
 
I assume you know about going to your profile, right-clicking your documents, music, videos, etc. and changing their location mapping via the GUI, right?

There is a built-in "disk cleanup" option when you right-click your drive and choose properties. But, in order to get it to also clean up old windows update files (etc.), you have to enable the "Clean Up System Files" button which will then add the checkbox for Windows Update files.

To each their own, and I could be wrong, but CCleaner and all those other registry/system checkers/cleaners have always seemed like snake oil at best.

Also, to clear off a multi-GB (usually) file. . . disable system hibernate and delete the hiberfil.sys by running the following at an elevated command prompt: powercfg.exe -h off

Before doing the above, you can see if you have a hiberfil.sys and its size by going to command prompt, "cd c:\", then do a "dir /a" (no quotes)
 
You can disable system restore as well to save a bit more.....i always figured the system image backup is the only bullet proof protection anyway...which gets stored on the other drive
Didn't see it listed in evils suggestions....just don't forget to make new images every so often

regarding cc cleaner i am also a big fan of windows built in disk cleaner but i believe cc can delete a couple of other things like browser cash which might save 700mb here an there...as a hole the built in tool is probably good enough
 
Hurin,

explain the profile (docu, music, video, gui change... please and thank you
 
evilsofa said:
Shrink the pagefile to something reasonable. It doesn't need to be 2.5 times the size of your memory; you can set the min and max to 700MB or so and it will be fine.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this depend in part on the amount of RAM?

After you've finished running Microsoft Update repeatedly until everything has been updated, you can delete everything in C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download. That's where Microsoft Update downloads all of its patches before it installs them.
Click to expand...
Is there any downside to deleting all these patches?

I just checked my system, which is Win 7 Pro 64. Probably well under 1 GB.
 
I have a setup like you are suggesting.

I disable hibernation, set the minimal page file to 800 and maximum to my ram size, and use the "Location" tab and have all of my user folder pointing to a HDD.

I also occasionally empty the C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download folder and run the Windows Update cleanup utility that's built into Disk Cleanup.
 
My Windows 7 x64 Ultimate installation, plus lots of software installed on the same partition (for Android and Windows development, a few modest sized games, my personal files and more), plus hibernation and page file takes up about 105GB total. I imagine 128GB could work for many people.

Changing System Restore usage and running Disk Cleanup every once in a while, especially the "Clean up system files" button to remove Windows Update leftovers, should keep the bloat at bay.

x509 said:
Is there any downside to deleting all these patches?
Click to expand...
No, but it's best to do it properly. See: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...es-under/8d98d924-b0b1-4f2b-bb4b-13f38126c588

Using Disk Cleanup can also clear out those files if you don't want to mess with stopping and starting the windows update service.
 
I have 8gigs of ram, what should my min/max for pagefile be? I have it set at 700/700
 
I'm down to 79.1 gigs from the initial 125. Itunes, some drivers, and most programs are on my 500 HD. I let windows manage pagefile and lost some space :(
 
Better to get a proper size drive. A small drive is nothing but trouble.
 
I still run an intel x25 80gb for my OS drive, works fine. I have 13gb free on it right now.
 
I simply can't afford anything greater in size.. there has to be a way for this to work
 
I have Windows 7 x64, all my programs, pagefile and hiberfil for 24 GB RAM on a 60 GB partition and have room to spare. I can't see a need for more than 80 GB for a system partition unless you run a huge amount of very, very big programs.
 
Haste266 said:
I still run an intel x25 80gb for my OS drive, works fine. I have 13gb free on it right now.
Click to expand...

Wow, 13gb? That's disastrous. You can't install basically anything on that drive and you risk running out of space with the next service pack lol.

That is, even if you disregard the performance penalty of running a jam packed 80gb drive.
 
Last edited:
I have Windows 7 Professional x64 installed on a 128GB SSD. I keep installed programs, program data, temporary files, page file, and download folder all on this drive and it's nowhere near being in danger of filling up. Currently there is 66 GB free of 119 GB available on the SSD and it's been running continuously since July 2012.

I have one program that generates a lot of data - a newsgroup reader. I keep that program's data on a separate drive. Media libraries (music, movies) are kept on a network file server. If I had a lot of programs, or any very large programs (games) I would install them to a separate drive, but overall, the effort needed is very very small.
 
120GB SSD is easy to use as the primary drive, little or no effort needed. Games programs and music need to do to an HHD that is about it.
 
some decent tips in this thread.

you can also set your page file on the SSD to the minimum and then set a 2GB (or whatever) size on the larger mechanical drive. just in case for some reason it is needed.

I have a system with win7 on a 60GB Agility 2 drive and apps like firefox/chrome. my wife gets it close to full from time to time but running CCleaner on it cleans up the junk and then running the Disk cleanup wizard to clean up the winsxs and other update files keep it to about 40% free

just keep it above 30% free as much as you can and you should be just peachy. I've been down to less than 10% free on my Samsung 830 and noticed no real world performance degradation, but still not a good place to be :)
 
Snufykat said:
120GB SSD is easy to use as the primary drive, little or no effort needed. Games programs and music need to do to an HHD that is about it.
Click to expand...

Having all the stuff you actually use on a slow HDD defeats the purpose of having the SSD in the first place.

Who cares if you boot fast if all your load times are back to 80's whenever you do stuff.

Paying that extra 60 bucks for extra space is worth it considering how much trouble and maintenance you're going to see for the rest of your OS life trimming, cleaning and caressing that little drive. Not to mention that 128Gb models are usually way slower than bigger models out of the box since they mostly use only a single controller.
 
A fast way would be to schedule an automated disk cleanup to run on X day that goes through and removes temp files and all but the most recent restore point.

When I had Win 7 on a 128GB SSD, I had that and office only on that drive. I installed everything else to d:\
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
A fast way would be to schedule an automated disk cleanup to run on X day that goes through and removes temp files and all but the most recent restore point.

When I had Win 7 on a 128GB SSD, I had that and office only on that drive. I installed everything else to d:\
Click to expand...

What is the point of having programs on a slow HDD and having a half empty SSD for nothing?
 
B00nie said:
Having all the stuff you actually use on a slow HDD defeats the purpose of having the SSD in the first place.

Who cares if you boot fast if all your load times are back to 80's whenever you do stuff.

Paying that extra 60 bucks for extra space is worth it considering how much trouble and maintenance you're going to see for the rest of your OS life trimming, cleaning and caressing that little drive. Not to mention that 128Gb models are usually way slower than bigger models out of the box since they mostly use only a single controller.
Click to expand...

I am going to have to disagree with you on the points you mention. 128GB SSD works great, no hassle at all to maintain, i have been running it for years.
With the extra $60 you mention that is close to a 100% increase in the cost.
I have not read anything that states a 128GB drive is noticeably slower then the 256GB drive in the same family and generation. Care to link something?
From newegg this morning, samsung 850evo 120GB $68. Samsung 850evo 250GB $118.
http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...SSD/global/html/ssd850evo/specifications.html
I am not seeing the "way slower" symptom you state as a fact for smaller drives. In my opinion, the small difference in random read write performance would not be noticeable in normal desktop usage, but that is my opinion. I believe they are all using the same controller except the 1 TB drive.
Who cares about fast boot time? Me, i do.
Thanks you for your opinion, it does not change mine.
 
Snufykat said:
I am going to have to disagree with you on the points you mention. 128GB SSD works great, no hassle at all to maintain, i have been running it for years.
With the extra $60 you mention that is close to a 100% increase in the cost.
I have not read anything that states a 128GB drive is noticeably slower then the 256GB drive in the same family and generation. Care to link something?
From newegg this morning, samsung 850evo 120GB $68. Samsung 850evo 250GB $118.
http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...SSD/global/html/ssd850evo/specifications.html
I am not seeing the "way slower" symptom you state as a fact for smaller drives. In my opinion, the small difference in random read write performance would not be noticeable in normal desktop usage, but that is my opinion. I believe they are all using the same controller except the 1 TB drive.
Who cares about fast boot time? Me, i do.
Thanks you for your opinion, it does not change mine.
Click to expand...

With a larger drive you get fast boot AND programs, which is the way you're supposed to have it. If I had to choose I would take longer boot time vs snappy applications.

I have a non-bootable Intel 910 800Gb PCI-E SSD in my gaming rig and when I load game levels it goes from minutes on hdd to seconds on the ssd. That's where the difference really matters, not booting up once a week.

In answer to your other question:
46342.png
 
Snufykat said:
I am going to have to disagree with you on the points you mention. 128GB SSD works great, no hassle at all to maintain, i have been running it for years.
With the extra $60 you mention that is close to a 100% increase in the cost.
I have not read anything that states a 128GB drive is noticeably slower then the 256GB drive in the same family and generation. Care to link something?
From newegg this morning, samsung 850evo 120GB $68. Samsung 850evo 250GB $118.
http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...SSD/global/html/ssd850evo/specifications.html
I am not seeing the "way slower" symptom you state as a fact for smaller drives. In my opinion, the small difference in random read write performance would not be noticeable in normal desktop usage, but that is my opinion. I believe they are all using the same controller except the 1 TB drive.
Who cares about fast boot time? Me, i do.
Thanks you for your opinion, it does not change mine.
Click to expand...

smaller drive slower performance same family facts
http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...ung_SSD_840_PRO_Series_Data_Sheet_rev_1_2.pdf
 
Meeho said:
What is the point of having programs on a slow HDD and having a half empty SSD for nothing?
Click to expand...

just exactly how many programs do you think you can squeeze into that SSD?

Windows? Check
Office? Check
IE? Check
DVD ripper? Check


my steam folder alone is 300GB so yes, it gets stored on the WDC Caviar Black 1TB..
my DVD movies folder is nearly 400GB (yes I own all of my ripped movies)
for day to day use the PC is extremely fast and gaming is great as well
Driver folder containing all of my drivers needed for a reinstall? Check
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
just exactly how many programs do you think you can squeeze into that SSD?

Windows? Check
Office? Check
IE? Check
DVD ripper? Check


my steam folder alone is 300GB so yes, it gets stored on the WDC Caviar Black 1TB..
my DVD movies folder is nearly 400GB (yes I own a right to use to all of my ripped movies)
for day to day use the PC is extremely fast and games load slow as molasses
Driver folder containing all of my drivers needed for a reinstall? Check
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

All computer contents can be easily squeezed into an SSD in many cases. Of course people with terabyte monsters need not apply.
 
B00nie said:
Fixed that for you.

All computer contents can be easily squeezed into an SSD in many cases. Of course people with terabyte monsters need not apply.
Click to expand...

Terabyte SSD is not cost effective for most users.

PCIE drives start at $950... eff that noise
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...08&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

Internal SSD 512GB (still too small for my needs) start at $180

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...08&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

and BTW games don't load slow as molasses on a spinner that reads in excess of 140MB sec
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
just exactly how many programs do you think you can squeeze into that SSD?
Click to expand...

On a 128 GB SSD? All of them. 99,9% of PC users can keep their OS and all of their programs on a 128 GB SSD, along with a big pagefile and hiberfil.
 
B00nie said:
With a larger drive you get fast boot AND programs, which is the way you're supposed to have it. If I had to choose I would take longer boot time vs snappy applications.

I have a non-bootable Intel 910 800Gb PCI-E SSD in my gaming rig and when I load game levels it goes from minutes on hdd to seconds on the ssd. That's where the difference really matters, not booting up once a week.

In answer to your other question:
46342.png
Click to expand...

Your home pc usage and mine are not the same. I have both on a smaller drive.
My WD black drive does just fine as mass storage. When i play media content from it it works fine, I do not think i would see any improvement in it if i had spent twice as much money.
You are aware that you are looking at random read operations for your loading a level situation right? Your link is for write performance.
 
Snufykat said:
Your home pc usage and mine are not the same. I have both on a smaller drive.
My WD black drive does just fine as mass storage. When i play media content from it it works fine, I do not think i would see any improvement in it if i had spent twice as much money.
You are aware that you are looking at random read operations for your loading a level situation right? Your link is for write performance.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference since most people have steam folders at 300gb+ so you don't load games using the 128Gb model anyway :D
 
Install OS, Browsers, Day to day apps on ssd. If you got a game you play 24/7 (who has time for that) then put THAT game on the SSD. games you play once a week or whatever don't need to be on the SSD. If you got a 300GB Steam library... You don't play them all, all the time. You probably go a month or two playing a couple of them. move them around. uninstall the ones you never play, etc.

If i where to install all my steam games they would probably bee about 250, plus my non-steam games for another 250GB. my steam directory is about 5GB cause i dont' play any of them any more..

Point is .. dont' be a digital pack rat when you dont' need to be.
 
redrage said:
Install OS, Browsers, Day to day apps on ssd. If you got a game you play 24/7 (who has time for that) then put THAT game on the SSD. games you play once a week or whatever don't need to be on the SSD. If you got a 300GB Steam library... You don't play them all, all the time. You probably go a month or two playing a couple of them. move them around. uninstall the ones you never play, etc.

If i where to install all my steam games they would probably bee about 250, plus my non-steam games for another 250GB. my steam directory is about 5GB cause i dont' play any of them any more..

Point is .. dont' be a digital pack rat when you dont' need to be.
Click to expand...

Even if I play only BF3 once a week I would totally hate waiting 2 minutes for a next level to load. WIth the SSD it's near instant. You boot only once a day max, you use your apps several times a day.

Even with the hdd Win10 boots pretty fast also, not to mention about linux.
 
The ideal setup is way too expensive for those with large steam or other game folders.

The next best is to have a setup where the HDD is cached by a 128-256GB SSD.

Sure, the first time you load something, it will be HDD speed, but subsequent loads will be SSD speed unless it gets auto removed from the SSD because it hasn't been used in such a long time that it gets removed from the cache.

Edit:
EliteBytes has two different packages that will let you do this with any hardware platform.

VeloSSD - simple caching of HDD(s) with SSD - $19.99 for the "Pro" version which allows the use of up to 256GB SSD and cache up to 4 volumes.
MaxVeloSSD - L1 cache is RAM and L2 cache is SSD for the HDD(s) - $29.99 for the "Pro" version which allows the use of up to 256GB SSD and cache up to 4 volumes.

And it is bootable so you could put everything on a huge HDD and have the full SSD speed or higher(if you have MaxVeloSSD).
 
Last edited:
B00nie said:
Even if I play only BF3 once a week I would totally hate waiting 2 minutes for a next level to load. WIth the SSD it's near instant. You boot only once a day max, you use your apps several times a day.

Even with the hdd Win10 boots pretty fast also, not to mention about linux.
Click to expand...

if i had to wait 2 minutes for a map to load.. i would probably return the game. but thats another story :-D still dont' be a pack rat and you should be fine.
 
cyclone3d said:
The ideal setup is way too expensive for those with large steam or other game folders.
Click to expand...

How is terabyte of SSD too expensive at 600 bucks? Not to mention 800Gb of it is enterprise class Intel 910 PCI-E monster lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top