5 ms·

Calling WinSxS "bloat" when that "bloat" is allowing 30+ years of backwards compatibility (and a lot of stuff will break) is creative by the article's author fo

Calling WinSxS "bloat" when that "bloat" is allowing 30+ years of backwards compatibility (and a lot of stuff will break) is creative by the article's author for sure. Taking up a lot of space on your drives for data to maintain backwards compatibility makes sense. Why, when not being actively used, does it need to occupy gigabytes of RAM?

Someone1234 4y ago
> Why, when not being actively used, does it need to occupy gigabytes of RAM? There's no need, which is why it doesn't.
- ninkendo 4y ago
  Given that the premise of this discussion is how Tiny11 credits removing WinSXS as part of the reason they were able to free up the memory, it would appear the article (and OP) disagree.
  - Dooflegna 4y ago
    The article talks about memory savings and storage savings. Removing WinSXS is a storage savings play, not a memory savings play. Here's the relevant quote: > Moreover, removing the Windows Component Store (WinSxS), which is responsible for a fair degree of Tiny11’s compactness, means that installing new features or languages isn’t possible.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Caching frequently used apps for snappiness.