Cleaning MSOCache after installation of Office 2003 SP1

[Heinz Wehner]

After the installation of Office 2003 SP1, I've noticed that more than
50MB of additional CAB files have been added to the MSOCache
folder. Now I want to keep only the minimum number of files and
free any disk space that is not required by MSO.

After the orignal installation of Outlook 2003 (I'm currently using
only this part of Office 2003), I've proceeded as described in KB
article 825933 which indeed freed a considerable amount of disk
space. Only a few files remained in the MSOCache directory.

My question: Is it safe to follow the same cleanup procedure again?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)

 

[Tony]

You can use the local installation tool to delete the cache
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/journ/LISTool.htm

Tony

 

[Sloan Crayton [MS]]

Do you have a clear understanding of the reason for this Local Install
Source feature? If you leave the LIS intact (with all of the CAB files from
the CD), it will eliminate the need to connect to the source when updating
your client.

Take a look at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;830168 for a
discussion of this feature.

Sloan Crayton
Microsoft

 

[Heinz Wehner]

My understanding of the Local Install Source feature is that it frees
me from having to insert the original Office 2003 (in my case it's the
Outlook 2003) CD-ROM if I want to install any updates or fixes. I've
decided that more hard disk space is worth the little inconvenience of
having to insert the CD-ROM. So by the end of last year, I've followed
the procedure as described in KB article 825933 which removed many
files from MSOCache but left the directory and a few files on the hard
disk. This is different from the LISTool which seems to remove this
directory completely. Thanks Tony for notifying me!

The issue now is that I've downloaded the SP1 files from the Internet
during an online Office Update. The question is what happens after I
do a partial or total cleanup of MSOCache and after some time, SP2 is
released. Will SP2 need the files cleaned from MSOCache before?
Should I download SP1 separately and burn a CD-ROM that could
then be used?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)

 

[Sloan Crayton [MS]]

I just wanted to ensure that you're aware that you have a way to escape the
need for the CD, and it appears that you have made that choice. <g>

Yes, you'll run into that recache of CABS unless you install without LIS.
The Local Installation Source Tool will do that for you. It will remove all
of the LIS information that is stored in the registry and your installation
should behave the same way that Office 2000 and Office XP did.

Sloan Crayton
Microsoft

 

[Heinz Wehner]

Sloan,

I'm not sure if I understand your answer completely:

For Office 2K, the LIS feature was not available. This resulted in the
necessity to have the original CD-ROM available if you wanted to
install an update. The point here is that although I've installed some
SPs and fixes over time, I was never asked to insert a CD-ROM with
Office 2K SP1 for example. The original CD-ROM was always sufficient.

I don't understand what you mean by "you'll run into that recache of
CABs unless you install without LIS". Do you mean that if I'm using
the procedure described in KB article 825933, then a future install of
SP2 will again result in CABs being written to MSOCache while if I'm
using LSITool, this caching will be prevented? So in the latter case,
the Office 2003 installation will behave like Office 2K as described
above, i.e. only the original CD-ROM will ever be asked for, right?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)

 

[Sloan Crayton [MS]]

Office 2000 updates almost always required the source CD even if a full-file
patch is used. We did recently create a 'file hash' that will provide the
possibility of installing with the full-file update to avoid the need for
the CD (this functionality does require Windows Installer 2.0).

In answer to your LIS questions, the answer is 'yes'. However, there are
changes in Windows Installer 3.0 (installed by Windows XP SP2) that will
minimize the need for the CD. Prior to Windows Installer 3.0, the use of a
binary patch often requires that the Windows Installer compare the changes
being made by a binary patch to the baseline source files.

Sloan Crayton
Microsoft

Sloan,

I'm not sure if I understand your answer completely:

For Office 2K, the LIS feature was not available. This resulted in the
necessity to have the original CD-ROM available if you wanted to
install an update. The point here is that although I've installed some
SPs and fixes over time, I was never asked to insert a CD-ROM with
Office 2K SP1 for example. The original CD-ROM was always sufficient.

I don't understand what you mean by "you'll run into that recache of
CABs unless you install without LIS". Do you mean that if I'm using
the procedure described in KB article 825933, then a future install of
SP2 will again result in CABs being written to MSOCache while if I'm
using LSITool, this caching will be prevented? So in the latter case,
the Office 2003 installation will behave like Office 2K as described
above, i.e. only the original CD-ROM will ever be asked for, right?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)

I just wanted to ensure that you're aware that you have a way to escape
the
need for the CD, and it appears that you have made that choice. <g>

Yes, you'll run into that recache of CABs unless you install without LIS.
The Local Installation Source Tool will do that for you. It will remove
all
of the LIS information that is stored in the registry and your
installation
should behave the same way that Office 2000 and Office XP did.

Sloan Crayton
Microsoft

My understanding of the Local Install Source feature is that it frees
me from having to insert the original Office 2003 (in my case it's the
Outlook 2003) CD-ROM if I want to install any updates or fixes. I've
decided that more hard disk space is worth the little inconvenience of
having to insert the CD-ROM. So by the end of last year, I've followed
the procedure as described in KB article 825933 which removed many
files from MSOCache but left the directory and a few files on the hard
disk. This is different from the LISTool which seems to remove this
directory completely. Thanks Tony for notifying me!

The issue now is that I've downloaded the SP1 files from the Internet
during an online Office Update. The question is what happens after I
do a partial or total cleanup of MSOCache and after some time, SP2 is
released. Will SP2 need the files cleaned from MSOCache before?
Should I download SP1 separately and burn a CD-ROM that could
then be used?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)


On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:33:02 -0700, "Sloan Crayton [MS]"

Do you have a clear understanding of the reason for this Local Install
Source feature? If you leave the LIS intact (with all of the CAB files
from
the CD), it will eliminate the need to connect to the source when
updating
your client.

Take a look at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;830168 for a
discussion of this feature.

Sloan Crayton
Microsoft



You can use the local installation tool to delete the cache
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/journ/LISTool.htm

Tony



After the installation of Office 2003 SP1, I've noticed that more
than
50MB of additional CAB files have been added to the MSOCache
folder. Now I want to keep only the minimum number of files and
free any disk space that is not required by MSO.

After the orignal installation of Outlook 2003 (I'm currently using
only this part of Office 2003), I've proceeded as described in KB
article 825933 which indeed freed a considerable amount of disk
space. Only a few files remained in the MSOCache directory.

My question: Is it safe to follow the same cleanup procedure again?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)

 

[Heinz Wehner]

Sloan,

thank you for these further hints and your assistance in general.

I've used the LIS Tool to remove the LIS feature on a notebook with
Windows 2000 Professional where disk space is a valuable resource.

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)

Office 2000 updates almost always required the source CD even if a full-file
patch is used. We did recently create a 'file hash' that will provide the
possibility of installing with the full-file update to avoid the need for
the CD (this functionality does require Windows Installer 2.0).

In answer to your LIS questions, the answer is 'yes'. However, there are
changes in Windows Installer 3.0 (installed by Windows XP SP2) that will
minimize the need for the CD. Prior to Windows Installer 3.0, the use of a
binary patch often requires that the Windows Installer compare the changes
being made by a binary patch to the baseline source files.

Sloan Crayton
Microsoft

Sloan,

I'm not sure if I understand your answer completely:

For Office 2K, the LIS feature was not available. This resulted in the
necessity to have the original CD-ROM available if you wanted to
install an update. The point here is that although I've installed some
SPs and fixes over time, I was never asked to insert a CD-ROM with
Office 2K SP1 for example. The original CD-ROM was always sufficient.

I don't understand what you mean by "you'll run into that recache of
CABs unless you install without LIS". Do you mean that if I'm using
the procedure described in KB article 825933, then a future install of
SP2 will again result in CABs being written to MSOCache while if I'm
using LSITool, this caching will be prevented? So in the latter case,
the Office 2003 installation will behave like Office 2K as described
above, i.e. only the original CD-ROM will ever be asked for, right?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)

I just wanted to ensure that you're aware that you have a way to escape
the need for the CD, and it appears that you have made that choice. <g>

Yes, you'll run into that recache of CABs unless you install without LIS.
The Local Installation Source Tool will do that for you. It will remove
all of the LIS information that is stored in the registry and your installation
should behave the same way that Office 2000 and Office XP did.

Sloan Crayton
Microsoft



My understanding of the Local Install Source feature is that it frees
me from having to insert the original Office 2003 (in my case it's the
Outlook 2003) CD-ROM if I want to install any updates or fixes. I've
decided that more hard disk space is worth the little inconvenience of
having to insert the CD-ROM. So by the end of last year, I've followed
the procedure as described in KB article 825933 which removed many
files from MSOCache but left the directory and a few files on the hard
disk. This is different from the LISTool which seems to remove this
directory completely. Thanks Tony for notifying me!

The issue now is that I've downloaded the SP1 files from the Internet
during an online Office Update. The question is what happens after I
do a partial or total cleanup of MSOCache and after some time, SP2 is
released. Will SP2 need the files cleaned from MSOCache before?
Should I download SP1 separately and burn a CD-ROM that could
then be used?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)


On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:33:02 -0700, "Sloan Crayton [MS]"

Do you have a clear understanding of the reason for this Local Install
Source feature? If you leave the LIS intact (with all of the CAB files
from the CD), it will eliminate the need to connect to the source when
updating your client.

Take a look at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;830168
for a discussion of this feature.

Sloan Crayton
Microsoft



You can use the local installation tool to delete the cache
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/journ/LISTool.htm

Tony



After the installation of Office 2003 SP1, I've noticed that more
than 50MB of additional CAB files have been added to the MSOCache
folder. Now I want to keep only the minimum number of files and
free any disk space that is not required by MSO.

After the orignal installation of Outlook 2003 (I'm currently using
only this part of Office 2003), I've proceeded as described in KB
article 825933 which indeed freed a considerable amount of disk
space. Only a few files remained in the MSOCache directory.

My question: Is it safe to follow the same cleanup procedure again?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)