On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:01:07 -0500, a.m wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:53:03 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-04-27 12:35, a.m wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:17:12 +0100, mechanic
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:53:39 -0000 (UTC), Suzuki Ichiro wrote:

On 2018/04/26, "...w¡ñ§±¤ñ" wrote:

The obvious intent is to allow prevent limited storage devices
being stuck on the as-shipped version of Windows. Development of
'Lean' though does not mean it will or will not become a
reality.

How much smaller is lean from regular windows?

It's supposed to take 2GB less hard disk space.

Not exactly that lean. If Microsoft were serious, they should make
sure that the operating system take no more than 2GB installed. I used
to run Windows 95 on a 500MB hard disk with space left over for games
and applications yet could complete most of the basic tasks I complete
today.


I think figuring out how to reduce the bloat is just not worth it from
MS's POV. Would cost too much time and money.

Probably not, but there truly is no reason for an operating system to
take the GBs that they currently do. Even Linux shouldn't be as large
post-installation as it is even though it's way smaller than Windows
is. I imagine that some of the bundled libraries take up space though.

There are people with skills to adapt programs to elderly machines.
I have an adaptation of Firefox that allows my G4 ibook to play
youtube full screen.