Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
You Make Good Sense.
Particularly This Part:
I keep wondering why so many miss the point that Windows is bloated. It
has nothing to do with how much free disk space you have or how much
hard drives cost or how fast a system you run it on. Because Windows
is bloated at some say 500 million lines of code (doubt it that's big)
it is without a doubt infested top to bottom with coding errors.
Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or in
Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most
not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the
potential for human error by a huge factor.
DSH
"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:39:45 -0000, "HEMI-Powered"
wrote:
Today, Robert Moir made these interesting comments ...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
Others have explained about the install requirements. As for
"in use", I wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb
partition... and would be far happier with 80 to 100Gb if you
keep your applications on the same partition as the OS.
Now that people want miracle applications and OSes that do
everything and now that hard disks are so cheap, the amount of
disk space consumed by new stuff is only going to increase.
I have about 55 gig for XP Pro SP2, but limit my primary partition
to only Windows and my apps. All data is stored on extended
partitions. Still, I am quite full on C:\ even with a modest
installed base of apps. If I were building a new PC today, only 30
months since my last one, it would be far hotter with far more
memory and HDD space into the terabyte range, but subdivided
between high-speed internal vs. removable-for-safety external. In
any case, if I really wanted Vista, I would want hardware that can
run it efficiently and take advantage of its new features, but
would not even stop to think about "only" 18 gig.
I keep wondering why so may miss the point that Windows is bloated. It
has nothing to do with how much free disk space you have or how much
hard drives cost or how fast a system you run it on. Because Windows
is bloated at some say 500 million lines of code (doubt it that's big)
it is without a doubt infested top to bottom with coding errors.
Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or it
Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most
not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the
potential for human error by a huge factor.
This "problem" multiplies with each new release of Windows because
each newer version is bigger and Microsoft never seems to find time to
get around to fixing all the bugs in the previous release so in effect
they get carried over and the latest version adds new, mostly yet
undiscovered bugs. What a way to run a railroad.
There is nothing wrong with adding new features. Still it would be
hard to say Vista isn't bloated with all kinds of clutter. This is
also true for browsers.
I don't know if it works with Vista, probably not, but if you're still
running XP, download a copy of the Opera browser. Use it for just a
day or two and then go back to IE7.
You'll see the difference immediately between lean mean fast running
code and bloatware.
|