On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:14:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Yeah, but manually doing that for 30 PCs isn't much fun.
>>
>> Can't you push a .reg that does it automagically?
> 
> There's probably a way of doing it. It's not particularly simple though.

We used to do this with 6,000 PCs at a place I worked at.

There are tools to do this, and they're not difficult to use.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-05-28 09:14, Invisible a écrit :
>>> Yeah, but manually doing that for 30 PCs isn't much fun.
>>
>> Can't you push a .reg that does it automagically?
>
> There's probably a way of doing it. It's not particularly simple though.
>

Type "disable compress old files" in Google.  while the two first 
entries appear legitimate, the third option is: 
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/812248
Which tells you exactly which key to delete, just like Darren said, and 
is free from publicity.

Now, to automate the task, you can type ".reg file format" in Google.
"I'm feeling lucky" should send you to: 
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310516

Tada!

There's a link at the bottom of that knowledge-base article that 
explains how to distribute it using group policies.

How much simpler did you want it to be?

>>>>> delete old OS updates,
>>>>
>>>> No, but you used to be able to do that on XP from the add/remove, IIRC.
>>>
>>> I think NT4 offered it, but I don't think XP does.
>>
>> Yes it does. There's a checkmark at the top of the Add/Remove Programs
>> window that allows you to see all of the patches and remove them
>> individually, if you want to.
>
> No, not uninstall the update, but remove the uninstall capability.

I'm sorry.  Your complete sentence from the previous message was:

 >>>>> But it does /not/ offer to empty your temp folder, delete old OS
 >>>>> updates, empty the recycle bin, trim the DLL cache, empty the
 >>>>> precache folder, or indeed do /anything/ which might actually,
 >>>>> you know, REDUCE DISK USAGE...

To most readers of the english language, it would appear that you wanted 
to be able to delete old OS updates.  If you wanted to be able to 
prevent someone from deleting an OS update, you worded it very poorly.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 5/28/2012 1:02, Invisible wrote:
> Yeah, but manually doing that for 30 PCs isn't much fun.

Not unless you automate it, no.

> Oh, really? I thought it just contains a redundant copy of all the recently
> used DLLs so Windows doesn't have to search for them again.

No. If it was doing that, it would use a different structure rather than 
copying the entire DLL, don't you think?

> Clearly the dire warnings of "this is why Windows gradually slows down" were
> wrong.

They often are.

>> They did SP3, which was a rollup of everything up until they basically
>> stopped supporting it. Honestly not sure if XP has SxS in this form.
>
> It probably doesn't. It seems to generate a folder like
>
> C:\WINDOWS\$NtUninstallKB485734654$
>
> for every single update it installs. So if you open the WINDOWS folder, you
> have to scroll past several billion of these folders before you get to the
> thing you were actually looking for - which is a bit annoying.

That's pre SxS, so I guess if you're worried about it, you delete the 
uninstall folders. That's how I always cleaned up.

>> Wait for Windows 8? There's a limit on how much you can do on each
>> release of an OS. :-)
>
> I don't see why that would be a problem for the biggest software producer on
> Earth, but hey...

It takes 9 months to make a baby regardless of how many women you assign.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 5/28/2012 6:14, Invisible wrote:
> No, not uninstall the update, but remove the uninstall capability.

Delete the uninstall directory you're complaining about. Problem solved.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 02/06/2012 09:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 6:14, Invisible wrote:
>> No, not uninstall the update, but remove the uninstall capability.
>
> Delete the uninstall directory you're complaining about. Problem solved.

You have to play with the registry to remove the uninstall entry from 
the menu though.

But yeah, this thread started out by Warp pointing out that in later 
versions of Windows, it no longer works that way.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/3/2012 1:52, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> You have to play with the registry to remove the uninstall entry from the
> menu though.

Nope. You can just ask to uninstall it, and add/remove will say "Oh, gee, 
looks like it's already uninstalled."  But heck, if you're going around 
deleting folders with funky names out of the windows boot directory, you 
should be handy with the registry.

> But yeah, this thread started out by Warp pointing out that in later
> versions of Windows, it no longer works that way.

Yep.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 03/06/2012 05:39 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/3/2012 1:52, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> You have to play with the registry to remove the uninstall entry from the
>> menu though.
>
> Nope. You can just ask to uninstall it, and add/remove will say "Oh,
> gee, looks like it's already uninstalled."

Last time I tried it, it crashed with some error message - but did offer 
to remove the entry from Add/Remove Programs, since it couldn't actually 
do the uninstall.

> But heck, if you're going
> around deleting folders with funky names out of the windows boot
> directory, you should be handy with the registry.

Seems reasonable.

Post a reply to this message