Re: Explanation please

[Richard Urban]

Many of the files are duplicated so the system can "self repair" if an
install over writes the original version with an older (read incompatible)
version of said file. This will be done automatically, without any
intervention on your part. It is part of what makes Windows XP so stable!

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

"Jerry" > wrote in message
.. .
> I upgraded from Windows ME to XP Pro. I have since installed all
> updates/patches etc to XP.
>
> For no reason other than curiosity I was looking in the \Windows\System
and
> then \Windows\System32 folders and noticed there were many folders in
common
> between the two. Do I really need two each of:
> CatRoot, Data, Drivers, IOSubSys, MUI, OOBE, Restore, Setup, and ShellExt
> folders?
>
> If two are not necessary then what is to be done - move the non-duplicate
> and newer files to the sub-folders under \System or \System32?
>
> I'm asking because some of these folders holdings are quite large and are
> exact duplicates of each other. Seems like a total waste of storage space.
>
> Jerry
>
>

[Eric McG]

The Windows File Protection system uses a subfolder of the %SystemRoot%\System32
folder to store its reserves. See this article for a brief explanation:

http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/wfp/index.shtml

The OP is probably referring to the Windows Me files that were left remaining
from the update to XP. These files can easily be identified by their date stamp.

I'm not sure exactly which ones are truly orphaned....I'm working the same issue
for a Windows 98 system that was updated to Windows 2000. I rename the files a
few at a time (just by change the extensions). If there's no complaints from the
system, I use WinZip to archive the files in their folder. I'll delete them all
eventually.

--
Hope this helps..Reply in newsgroup only.
Eric McGillicudy

"Richard Urban" > wrote in message
...
> Many of the files are duplicated so the system can "self repair" if an
> install over writes the original version with an older (read incompatible)
> version of said file. This will be done automatically, without any
> intervention on your part. It is part of what makes Windows XP so stable!
>
> --
> Regards:
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
> "Jerry" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I upgraded from Windows ME to XP Pro. I have since installed all
> > updates/patches etc to XP.
> >
> > For no reason other than curiosity I was looking in the \Windows\System
> and
> > then \Windows\System32 folders and noticed there were many folders in
> common
> > between the two. Do I really need two each of:
> > CatRoot, Data, Drivers, IOSubSys, MUI, OOBE, Restore, Setup, and ShellExt
> > folders?
> >
> > If two are not necessary then what is to be done - move the non-duplicate
> > and newer files to the sub-folders under \System or \System32?
> >
> > I'm asking because some of these folders holdings are quite large and are
> > exact duplicates of each other. Seems like a total waste of storage space.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
>
>

[CS]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:17:09 -0800, "Jerry" >
wrote:

>I upgraded from Windows ME to XP Pro. I have since installed all
>updates/patches etc to XP.
>
>For no reason other than curiosity I was looking in the \Windows\System and
>then \Windows\System32 folders and noticed there were many folders in common
>between the two. Do I really need two each of:
>CatRoot, Data, Drivers, IOSubSys, MUI, OOBE, Restore, Setup, and ShellExt
>folders?
>
>If two are not necessary then what is to be done - move the non-duplicate
>and newer files to the sub-folders under \System or \System32?
>
>I'm asking because some of these folders holdings are quite large and are
>exact duplicates of each other. Seems like a total waste of storage space.
>
>Jerry
>

That's the undesirable result of an upgrade rather than a clean
install. Leave all the folders alone. Deleting the wrong ones will
render Pro unusable. If you feel you would rather not have those
duplicates, you can always install XP Pro clean using your ME CD as
proof of a valid upgrade path when the installation program asks.

Of course this means reinstalling everything. However, I believe you
will be better served by doing it that way. I've been through the
same scenario (upgrading from ME to XP) and finally decided to start
over clean. Never looked back.

[Michael Stevens]

Eric McG wrote:
> The Windows File Protection system uses a subfolder of the
> %SystemRoot%\System32 folder to store its reserves. See this article
> for a brief explanation:
>
> http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/wfp/index.shtml
>
> The OP is probably referring to the Windows Me files that were left
> remaining from the update to XP. These files can easily be identified
> by their date stamp.
>
> I'm not sure exactly which ones are truly orphaned....I'm working the
> same issue for a Windows 98 system that was updated to Windows 2000.
> I rename the files a few at a time (just by change the extensions).
> If there's no complaints from the system, I use WinZip to archive the
> files in their folder. I'll delete them all eventually.
>
>

If the uninstall files are saved, they will not be scattered through the new
Windows folder. They are located in an uninstall folder. During the upgrade
the old Windows folder is backed up along with the relevant registry
settings and then the Windows folder is deleted and a new clean folder is
created for XP. After the XP files are installed into the new Windows folder
the relevant setting are migrated into the new XP install.
Using Disk Cleanup will allow you to remove the uninstall files from
Add/Remove.
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

> "Richard Urban" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Many of the files are duplicated so the system can "self repair" if
>> an install over writes the original version with an older (read
>> incompatible) version of said file. This will be done automatically,
>> without any intervention on your part. It is part of what makes
>> Windows XP so stable!
>>
>> --
>> Regards:
>>
>> Richard Urban
>>
>> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>>
>> "Jerry" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> I upgraded from Windows ME to XP Pro. I have since installed all
>>> updates/patches etc to XP.
>>>
>>> For no reason other than curiosity I was looking in the
>>> \Windows\System
>> and
>>> then \Windows\System32 folders and noticed there were many folders
>>> in common between the two. Do I really need two each of:
>>> CatRoot, Data, Drivers, IOSubSys, MUI, OOBE, Restore, Setup, and
>>> ShellExt folders?
>>>
>>> If two are not necessary then what is to be done - move the
>>> non-duplicate and newer files to the sub-folders under \System or
>>> \System32?
>>>
>>> I'm asking because some of these folders holdings are quite large
>>> and are exact duplicates of each other. Seems like a total waste of
>>> storage space.
>>>
>>> Jerry

[Alex Nichol]

Jerry wrote:

>I upgraded from Windows ME to XP Pro. I have since installed all
>updates/patches etc to XP.
>
>For no reason other than curiosity I was looking in the \Windows\System and
>then \Windows\System32 folders and noticed there were many folders in common
>between the two. Do I really need two each of:
>CatRoot, Data, Drivers, IOSubSys, MUI, OOBE, Restore, Setup, and ShellExt
>folders?
>
>If two are not necessary then what is to be done - move the non-duplicate
>and newer files to the sub-folders under \System or \System32?

The ones in System will be left over from the ME installation; it used
System where XP uses System32. It *may* be that there are files there
that are still in use by left over programs, that still refer to those
versions rather than others. The system\oobe folder you can most
probably do without, but other than that, I notice that on mine, when I
look in Details mode, with Date Accessed, I see most of the files have
been accessed by *something* in the past three weeks. Now that may be
just a Windows Update 'checking the system', but means I prefer to leave
the folder alone - the total content of system is only 18.8 MB on my
machine, which is a trivial fraction of the space taken by the system as
a whole
..

--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)