Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

DSH

Hi

Vista needs that amount of disk space for the initial installation.

--


Will Denny
MS-MVP Shell/User
Please reply to the Newsgroup


Please reply to the Newgroups
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

DSH

"Initial Installation"...

And how much after that?

DSH

"Will Denny" wrote in message
...

Hi

Vista needs that amount of disk space for the initial installation.

--
Will Denny
MS-MVP Shell/User
Please reply to the Newsgroup


Please reply to the Newgroups

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...

Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

DSH

Hi

The disk space used after the installation goes down dependent on what has
been installed - 9/10 GBs perhaps.

--


Will Denny
MS-MVP Shell/User
Please reply to the Newsgroup


Please reply to the Newgroups
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...
"Initial Installation"...

And how much after that?

DSH

"Will Denny" wrote in message
...

Hi

Vista needs that amount of disk space for the initial installation.

--
Will Denny
MS-MVP Shell/User
Please reply to the Newsgroup


Please reply to the Newgroups

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...

Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

DSH

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:01:57 -0000, "Will Denny" wrote:

Hi

The disk space used after the installation goes down dependent on what has
been installed - 9/10 GBs perhaps.

Of course, that 9-10Gig only includes the OS files. Most users nowadays have
TONS of HUGE media files, which will NOT all fit in that 9-10gig.

Personally, with the prices of HDs so cheap nowadays, I don't understand WHY
people want to make their System partitions so SMALL. Doing this does not speed
up their machines.

The ONLY things which TRULY speed up a machine are
1) CPU type and clock speed
2) CPU cache size
3) System Frontside Bus speed
5) System RAM amount and speed.
6) HD speed both rotational and speed of movement of read/write heads.)
7) CD/DVD drive speed.
8) GPU speed
9) Graphics Card ON-BOARD VRAM and whether it shares memory with the OS or not.
10 Graphics bus speed.

Notice that NONE of these have a THING to do with OS size or user software size,
yet people STILL think smaller System folders are BETTER speed-wise.

Wake up, folks!! We NO LONGER have to try to maximize our small 500meg Hard
drives -- which cost over 100 times (or more) what our modern 500Gig drives now
cost on their initial introduction -- because they were so PRECIOUS, being so
EXPENSIVE.

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original thread.
================================================== ==========

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:36:19 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
wrote:

Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

My install (business version) takes up just under 9 GB. That's after
it was installed. Needs more room TO install when it expands cab files
and makes backups, etc.. So the 15 GB free minimum Microsoft says you
need is pretty close to minimum I guess.

It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day and
age of 500gb drives....I have Vista on a separate 60gb SATA drive and right
now it only has ~20gb free, with nothing especially large on it other than a
couple games, but that's why I have additional 310gb of space :-)



"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:36:19 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
wrote:

Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

My install (business version) takes up just under 9 GB. That's after
it was installed. Needs more room TO install when it expands cab files
and makes backups, etc.. So the 15 GB free minimum Microsoft says you
need is pretty close to minimum I guess.

Keith Schaefer wrote:

It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
and age of 500gb drives....


Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your own
local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the operating
system.

My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used
about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.

Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90 or
so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even
considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's
dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone down
substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time.

Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so much
more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed for
it.

It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

Balderdash!

It's a conspiracy between Bloatware Software Manufacturers and Hardware
Manufactures -- each scratching the other's back.

Tell us about the TEN Good Reasons why we need VISTA and all the things it
will do that XP can't -- THEN you MAY be able to justify the bloatware.

Capabilities & Limitations...

BOTH the Upside & the Downside.

"Transparent Windows" won't cut it.

But you don't seem to be able to do that.

I have 300 GB of disk space -- that's not the issue.

DSH

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Keith Schaefer wrote:

It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
and age of 500gb drives....


Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your
own local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the
operating system.

My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used
about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.

Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90
or so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even
considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's
dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone
down substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time.

Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so
much more capability while still spending much less for the disk space
needed for it.

It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

Balderdash!

It's a conspiracy between Bloatware Software Manufacturers and
Hardware Manufactures -- each scratching the other's back.

Tell us about the TEN Good Reasons why we need VISTA and all
the things it will do that XP can't -- THEN you MAY be able to
justify the bloatware.

My view of the software industry in general, certainly not just
MS, is that they have become 100% marketing oriented, not problem
solvers. So, with the total possible market virtually saturated
with PCs already, the only way to generate new sales and revenues
is to convince customers with ever shorter product cycles that
they simply must have the newest and greatest, no matter what the
cost, no matter the problems, and certainly, no matter if it does
or does not improve the real reason why we have computers in the
first place - to do useful work.

I have long been a Luddite when it comes to both app and O/S
upgrades and hardware. I have found that I get much more work
done at much less expense and with far fewer headaches by staying
at N - 1 from whatever is state-of-the-art and let the other
fellow beta test with their Visa card. But, if you want to get a
new PC, or must, then you're probably going to be a Vista
customer.

Capabilities & Limitations...

BOTH the Upside & the Downside.

"Transparent Windows" won't cut it.

But you don't seem to be able to do that.

I have 300 GB of disk space -- that's not the issue.


--
HP, aka Jerry

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:07:42 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
wrote:

Balderdash!

It's a conspiracy between Bloatware Software Manufacturers and Hardware
Manufactures -- each scratching the other's back.

Tell us about the TEN Good Reasons why we need VISTA and all the things it
will do that XP can't -- THEN you MAY be able to justify the bloatware.

Capabilities & Limitations...

BOTH the Upside & the Downside.

"Transparent Windows" won't cut it.

But you don't seem to be able to do that.

I have 300 GB of disk space -- that's not the issue.

DSH

If it's "not the issue", as you claim, WHY are you MAKING an issue out of it?
You need to be a little more consistent in your posts.

The fact is, you simply don't like Vista. PERIOD.
Ok, that's fine. Some do, and some don't. But creating strawmen to argue
against it is kind of juvenile, don't you think?

Use Vista or not. We really don't care. But PLEASE make your idiotic comments
somewhere else.

The local Village Idiots Club monthly meeting, for instance. I'm sure they'll
think you're a genius compared with them, and pat you on the back, rather than
insult you.

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original thread.
================================================== ==========

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

Keith Schaefer wrote:

It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
and age of 500gb drives....


Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your own
local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the operating
system.

My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used
about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.

Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90 or
so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even
considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's
dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone down
substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time.

Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so much
more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed for
it.

It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.

I don't get upset with how much disk space it takes up, I do get
annoyed how bloated Vista is because we both know the bigger it is the
more lines of code. The more lines of code, the more chance for bugs.

Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer to offer
more customization at initial setup. I think it pretty much has always
been full speed ahead, load it up. I know there are ways to limit what
gets installed, but I'm talking what the typical person does.

I can remember several years ago I was trying a version of Linux. I
saw a fancy Linux suite package in the store, couldn't resist and ran
home with it. I had the disk space so I said to myself what the heck,
this package came with 8 CD's of stuff, I paid for it, may as well put
it all on. I know, that was kind of dumb. grin

Well for the next 90 minutes I sat in front of my PC feeding the beast
first this CD, then the next one, then going back to a earlier CD and
what seemed like a endless parade of menu pages coming up on screen.

Near the end it said insert CD #7. I popped it in and oops, the
instructions were now totally in German. That kind of spoiled my day.
Trying again I did notice the manual said I can choose to install what
I want as I go along. The Linux installer first loaded up necessary
files. That took maybe 15 minutes. Then it showed a nice menu with
check box after check box of what I could install or skip. Shame
Windows don't try that approach. First get the bare necessary files
unpacked, installed, try to boot, if successful then present a menu
and work its way down a huge laundry list of features you can accept
or skip.

I installed Ubuntu a few weeks ago. It didn't offer many options about what
to install. It installed all sorts of features I didn't ask for and don't
need.

Dale

"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

Keith Schaefer wrote:

It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
and age of 500gb drives....


Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your
own
local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the
operating
system.

My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used
about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.

Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90
or
so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even
considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's
dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone
down
substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time.

Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so
much
more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed
for
it.

It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.

I don't get upset with how much disk space it takes up, I do get
annoyed how bloated Vista is because we both know the bigger it is the
more lines of code. The more lines of code, the more chance for bugs.

Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer to offer
more customization at initial setup. I think it pretty much has always
been full speed ahead, load it up. I know there are ways to limit what
gets installed, but I'm talking what the typical person does.

I can remember several years ago I was trying a version of Linux. I
saw a fancy Linux suite package in the store, couldn't resist and ran
home with it. I had the disk space so I said to myself what the heck,
this package came with 8 CD's of stuff, I paid for it, may as well put
it all on. I know, that was kind of dumb. grin

Well for the next 90 minutes I sat in front of my PC feeding the beast
first this CD, then the next one, then going back to a earlier CD and
what seemed like a endless parade of menu pages coming up on screen.

Near the end it said insert CD #7. I popped it in and oops, the
instructions were now totally in German. That kind of spoiled my day.
Trying again I did notice the manual said I can choose to install what
I want as I go along. The Linux installer first loaded up necessary
files. That took maybe 15 minutes. Then it showed a nice menu with
check box after check box of what I could install or skip. Shame
Windows don't try that approach. First get the bare necessary files
unpacked, installed, try to boot, if successful then present a menu
and work its way down a huge laundry list of features you can accept
or skip.

Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

Keith Schaefer wrote:

It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in
this day and age of 500gb drives....


Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in
terms of megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar
cost (substitute your own local currency, if necessary) of
providing hard disk space for the operating system.

My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost
$200. DOS used about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.

Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of
that, $90 or so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And
that's without even considering that 20-year old dollars were
worth much more than today's dollars. The cost of providing
space for the operating system has gone down substantially and
continues to go down substantially all the time.

Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more
easily than 20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's
wonderful that we can get so much more capability while still
spending much less for the disk space needed for it.

It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about
an operating system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.

I don't get upset with how much disk space it takes up, I do
get annoyed how bloated Vista is because we both know the
bigger it is the more lines of code. The more lines of code,
the more chance for bugs.

Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer
to offer more customization at initial setup. I think it
pretty much has always been full speed ahead, load it up. I
know there are ways to limit what gets installed, but I'm
talking what the typical person does.

I can remember several years ago I was trying a version of
Linux. I saw a fancy Linux suite package in the store,
couldn't resist and ran home with it. I had the disk space so
I said to myself what the heck, this package came with 8 CD's
of stuff, I paid for it, may as well put it all on. I know,
that was kind of dumb. grin

Well for the next 90 minutes I sat in front of my PC feeding
the beast first this CD, then the next one, then going back to
a earlier CD and what seemed like a endless parade of menu
pages coming up on screen.

Near the end it said insert CD #7. I popped it in and oops,
the instructions were now totally in German. That kind of
spoiled my day. Trying again I did notice the manual said I
can choose to install what I want as I go along. The Linux
installer first loaded up necessary files. That took maybe 15
minutes. Then it showed a nice menu with check box after check
box of what I could install or skip. Shame Windows don't try
that approach. First get the bare necessary files unpacked,
installed, try to boot, if successful then present a menu and
work its way down a huge laundry list of features you can
accept or skip.

I think it is a fundamental law of nature that software gets
bigger and slower, and also buggier. But, there are big
differences between software easily updated by a critical patch
or some dot maintence release vs. a fixed hardware/software
system such as consumer electronics or cars. Both can and are
flash upgradable, but people actually expect their TV to turn on
and run the first time every time and not have to "reboot" it.
And, they actually have this silly notion that their car, with
perhaps up to 25 or more computers talking to each other across
multiplexed wiring to actually start, run, get good economy, be
clean, and all the neat stuff work 24x7x250,000 miles. Yes, yes,
yes, I know those are closed environments that make it easier,
but if you had to buy all new software to keep your current stuff
running, well, ...

--
HP, aka Jerry

Can you just imagine how slick it would be if the operating system could
use the alphabet, instead of just a paltry 0 or 1. That'd open up a whole
new world, and increase our speed and capacity 13-fold.


"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
Keith Schaefer wrote:

It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
and age of 500gb drives....


Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your own
local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the operating
system.

My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used about
1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.

Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90 or so.
That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even considering
that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's dollars. The cost of
providing space for the operating system has gone down substantially and
continues to go down substantially all the time.

Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so much
more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed for it.

It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?