If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On Fri, 11 May 2018 11:19:05 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Keith Nuttle" wrote | I have a laptop with an i7 CPU, a lot of ram, and disk space. On this | computer I would just select all and let it go. | | However on my tablet with 1GB of ram, 32GB of storage space, I could | select the modules I want. I don't think included software is a significant bloat factor. The basic OS keeps growing because things are added, like support for new file types and hardware. But that growth is minimal, and generally necessary. The real problem, since Vista, is that Microsoft forces you to basically store an entire install DVD on disk, as the winsxs folder. That folder then grows with each thing you add. The secondary problem is that you're restricted from removing such things. (As well as software you don't need. On XP I removed Media Player and the useless help files, along with backup drivers and the whole System File Protection mess that stores backup copies of files in a hidden folder. Doing that kind of thing is harder on Vista+, for two reasons: 1) The system is very brittle and breaks easily and 2) you have to jump through hoops to clear the file restrictions so that you can delete things. The result, on Vista+, is a grotesquely bloated system, but it also has lots of drivers, and the restrictions provide stability. So the general experience for most people is of a system that runs smoothly and dependably. The other factor that causes a lot of bloat is recent vintage software. Install something like MS Office and you've added enough bloat to make a new OS. Similarly, Libre Office is gigantic and won't let you just install the parts you need. (You can skip parts, but that only means you won't see them. What hope is there when OSS office software programmers don't even have the sense to go modular?) I have Paint Shop Pro 5, which weighs in at 54 MB. I also have PSP16, which is more like 400 MB. The functionality is similar between the two. Lazy programmers using lots of "wrappers". They figure they no longer have to write lean software. And of course there's Microsoft's .Net, which is a pig that shouldn't be needed on most computers. But now it's built in. Then there's the Metro add-on in 8/10, though I don't know how much room that takes up. Win98 basic install was about 700 MB. XP is about 1 GB. Vista/7 jumped up to 7-9 GB. At least 4 GB of that is the winsxs folder. They don't tell you, or give you a choice, in storing the install files. I'd be curious to know what parts actually could be made modular, but I doubt they'd account for much space. That was a very informative post. I didn't realize a number of the things you mentioned and the large number of hard disk space used on my C: siuddenly makes sense. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On Fri, 11 May 2018 11:32:47 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Mayayana wrote: Win98 basic install was about 700 MB. XP is about 1 GB. Vista/7 jumped up to 7-9 GB. At least 4 GB of that is the winsxs folder. They don't tell you, or give you a choice, in storing the install files. hard drives are *much* larger than they were back in win98 days or even win7 days. an extra few gig isn't worth worrying about anymore. I remember how proud I was of the fact that I got a $300 burse in 1995 (had the highest grade in Math in my district) that I used to buy a 500MB HD. It was so much larger than the 40MB HD one I was relying on until then. It's hard to imagine that people once managed to do as much as they did with so little space. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
"Doomsdrzej" wrote
| That was a very informative post. I didn't realize a number of the | things you mentioned and the large number of hard disk space used on | my C: siuddenly makes sense. It can also get much worse. When I first learned about winsxs I started searching and found that people were complaining about it growing up to 60-80 GB and more. I was dealing with it because a friend had been given a laptop with Vista, by her son. Her son updated it to Win7. But the Win7 install inherited the bloat that had accumulated on Vista. Backing up an old, used, bloated, 40-60 GB system is not a desirable situation. It would require a dedicated USB stick or numerous DVDs. And for what? Most of what was there was not needed. It was just crap in winsxs, the driver store folder, etc. But the winsxs bloat also couldn't be deleted without risk of breaking the system. I ended up clearing the whole thing for her, restoring Vista, then updating to Win7. At that point I was able to make a 2-DVD disk image and erase the OEM Vista restore partition, gaining more space. So if winsxs gets bloated again (or, of course, if the system needs to be restored for any reason) that fresh original disk image can be restored. I try to do that for any system -- making a disk image with basic software installed before using it. But for the bloat and brittleness of Vista+ it's all the more important. I think the reason more people aren't aware of this mess is because Microsoft have been very cagey about it. When I first researched the issue I found this: Microsoft President Steven Sinofsky (now former President) and his assistant said: ...nearly every file in the WinSxS directory is a "hard link" to the physical files elsewhere on the system-meaning that the files are not actually in this directory. ...The actual amount of storage consumed varies, but on a typical system it is about 400MB. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2...isk-space.aspx The "Windows Server Core Team" said: All of the components in the operating system are found in the WinSxS folder - in fact we call this location the component store. ...The WinSxS folder is the only location that the component is found on the system, all other instances of the files that you see on the system are "projected" by hard linking from the component store. http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/a...-so-large.aspx So two top people at Microsoft were both saying that Windows isn't actually bloated. It's just a mirage caused by internal file linking. But they didn't manage to get their stories straight. They were giving opposing explanations for the mirage. One says winsxs is just an index. The other says everything else is just an index. Either way, that "mirage" bloat wasn't available for storing files. If 40,000 files fall in the forest, do they take up space if no one from outside Microsoft knows about it? No. But given the confusing nonsense the Microsoft brass were spouting it's no wonder that the tech columnists were not catching on. Common sense would have the installer ask, "Would you like the install DVD copied to disk for future convenience?" But they borrowed Apple's logic: Don't give them any options and they won't be able to screw it up. That approach has given Apple an image of dependability while Windows has an image of being a malware magnet. And I'm sure lots of people have been impressed by how easy it was to install new hardware on Win7 as compared to XP. Much closer to true plug n' play because drivers for everything but the kitchen sink are already sitting in winsxs. When I first played with Win7 to see how salvageable it might be, I experimented with deleting/moving winsxs. I found that I could move it to another partition, but that wasn't very helpful. I found that I could also delete lots of unnecessary stuff, if I first cleared the file restrictions, but it's so huge that would take weeks. When I tried just deleting the content, things went haywire. I opened Windows Explorer to find no drives. That's what I mean by brittle. Windows Vista+ *should* function just fine with its basic system files, but it's easily broken. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:53:59 -0400, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2018 11:32:47 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Mayayana wrote: Win98 basic install was about 700 MB. XP is about 1 GB. Vista/7 jumped up to 7-9 GB. At least 4 GB of that is the winsxs folder. They don't tell you, or give you a choice, in storing the install files. hard drives are *much* larger than they were back in win98 days or even win7 days. an extra few gig isn't worth worrying about anymore. Right. At today's prices a hard drive usually costs around a nickel a GB. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On Fri, 11 May 2018 13:54:07 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Doomsdrzej" wrote | That was a very informative post. I didn't realize a number of the | things you mentioned and the large number of hard disk space used on | my C: siuddenly makes sense. It can also get much worse. When I first learned about winsxs I started searching and found that people were complaining about it growing up to 60-80 GB and more. I was dealing with it because a friend had been given a laptop with Vista, by her son. Her son updated it to Win7. But the Win7 install inherited the bloat that had accumulated on Vista. Backing up an old, used, bloated, 40-60 GB system is not a desirable situation. It would require a dedicated USB stick or numerous DVDs. And for what? Most of what was there was not needed. It was just crap in winsxs, the driver store folder, etc. But the winsxs bloat also couldn't be deleted without risk of breaking the system. I ended up clearing the whole thing for her, restoring Vista, then updating to Win7. At that point I was able to make a 2-DVD disk image and erase the OEM Vista restore partition, gaining more space. So if winsxs gets bloated again (or, of course, if the system needs to be restored for any reason) that fresh original disk image can be restored. I try to do that for any system -- making a disk image with basic software installed before using it. But for the bloat and brittleness of Vista+ it's all the more important. I think the reason more people aren't aware of this mess is because Microsoft have been very cagey about it. When I first researched the issue I found this: Microsoft President Steven Sinofsky (now former President) and his assistant said: ...nearly every file in the WinSxS directory is a "hard link" to the physical files elsewhere on the system-meaning that the files are not actually in this directory. ...The actual amount of storage consumed varies, but on a typical system it is about 400MB. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2...isk-space.aspx The "Windows Server Core Team" said: All of the components in the operating system are found in the WinSxS folder - in fact we call this location the component store. ...The WinSxS folder is the only location that the component is found on the system, all other instances of the files that you see on the system are "projected" by hard linking from the component store. http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/a...-so-large.aspx So two top people at Microsoft were both saying that Windows isn't actually bloated. It's just a mirage caused by internal file linking. But they didn't manage to get their stories straight. They were giving opposing explanations for the mirage. One says winsxs is just an index. The other says everything else is just an index. Either way, that "mirage" bloat wasn't available for storing files. If 40,000 files fall in the forest, do they take up space if no one from outside Microsoft knows about it? No. But given the confusing nonsense the Microsoft brass were spouting it's no wonder that the tech columnists were not catching on. Common sense would have the installer ask, "Would you like the install DVD copied to disk for future convenience?" But they borrowed Apple's logic: Don't give them any options and they won't be able to screw it up. That approach has given Apple an image of dependability while Windows has an image of being a malware magnet. And I'm sure lots of people have been impressed by how easy it was to install new hardware on Win7 as compared to XP. Much closer to true plug n' play because drivers for everything but the kitchen sink are already sitting in winsxs. When I first played with Win7 to see how salvageable it might be, I experimented with deleting/moving winsxs. I found that I could move it to another partition, but that wasn't very helpful. I found that I could also delete lots of unnecessary stuff, if I first cleared the file restrictions, but it's so huge that would take weeks. When I tried just deleting the content, things went haywire. I opened Windows Explorer to find no drives. That's what I mean by brittle. Windows Vista+ *should* function just fine with its basic system files, but it's easily broken. I remember feeling so privileged to have gotten Vista Ultimate back in the day for beta-testing that pile of crap. It was a complete mess in beta and I was surprised when they finalized the code because it was nowhere near ready for prime time. It still ended up being stable enough, but it felt as though you had to be careful using it. However, this space issue is making me wonder if Windows is essentially designed to be reinstalled after a certain amount of time. After all, the operating system will just grow and grow and grow with each new update which means that it might eventually take all of the disk. Unless the process resets every time there is a considerably large update (like 1803) and the system shrinks, I can't imagine it doing anything other than consume the whole of free space. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
In article , Ken Blake
wrote: Win98 basic install was about 700 MB. XP is about 1 GB. Vista/7 jumped up to 7-9 GB. At least 4 GB of that is the winsxs folder. They don't tell you, or give you a choice, in storing the install files. hard drives are *much* larger than they were back in win98 days or even win7 days. an extra few gig isn't worth worrying about anymore. Right. At today's prices a hard drive usually costs around a nickel a GB. keep shopping. it's less than 2c/gig now, at least for spinners. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
"Doomsdrzej" wrote
| I remember feeling so privileged to have gotten Vista Ultimate back in | the day for beta-testing that pile of crap. It was a complete mess in | beta and I was surprised when they finalized the code because it was | nowhere near ready for prime time. It was several years behind schedule. Remember Longhorn? Their first stab at Metro, but with the idea the whole OS would be .Net. They finally gave up on that in 2005. One of the Microsoft people in charge actually admitted that it was far too bloated to run on "existing hardware". So I guess Vista was somewhat of a mad rush, already 3 years late to fit into their cash-mooching schedule of a major update every 3 years. | Unless the process resets every time there is a considerably | large update (like 1803) and the system shrinks, I can't imagine it | doing anything other than consume the whole of free space. Sounds like a 1950s sci-fi movie. It eats the computer, then the house, then starts marauding through the neighborhood. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:53:59 -0400, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2018 11:32:47 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Mayayana wrote: Win98 basic install was about 700 MB. XP is about 1 GB. Vista/7 jumped up to 7-9 GB. At least 4 GB of that is the winsxs folder. They don't tell you, or give you a choice, in storing the install files. hard drives are *much* larger than they were back in win98 days or even win7 days. an extra few gig isn't worth worrying about anymore. I remember how proud I was of the fact that I got a $300 burse in 1995 (had the highest grade in Math in my district) that I used to buy a 500MB HD. It was so much larger than the 40MB HD one I was relying on until then. It's hard to imagine that people once managed to do as much as they did with so little space. I had a consulting engineering partner who insisted that all he wanted was 5 Mb. He was right royally annoyed when he found he could no longer buy one. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On 05/11/2018 02:38 AM, Paul wrote:
Especially when the NVidia/AMD driver has a Legacy status, no longer receives updates, a kernel update comes in, DKMS fails to work, and so on. Kernels don't just "come in". If they do for you, you chose the wrong distro. If I was in a position where I had to rely on Linux as a daily-driver, I would have to run it "bog-standard" to avoid stressful maintenance situations. Since they have adopted "auto-patcher disease" like Windows, Bull****. Who is "they"? A blanket statement like yours covers them all, making it false. I don't know how many times I've had a kernel update trash an install (I run these in VMs), and had to roll back. So? Linux is *the kernel* . A kernel "update" is essentially the replacement of your operating system. Be happy, don't install new kernels to an install that you wish to keep. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On 05/11/2018 05:42 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-05-11 19:07, Escapee wrote: [...] Who is "they"? A blanket statement like yours covers them all, making it false. [...] Based on common usage, I parse "they" as a generalisation, not a universal. Also, any claim about the real world is a generalisation. Universals exist only in axiomatic systems. What are your reasons for parsing "they" as a universal? It seems to me your question "who...?" implies that "they" doesn't cover them all. Else why ask for clarification? "Who...?" wasn't the real question. Paul didn't intend to alert anyone here to problems with a particular distro, because nobody would care anyway. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On Fri, 11 May 2018 17:07:47 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Doomsdrzej" wrote | I remember feeling so privileged to have gotten Vista Ultimate back in | the day for beta-testing that pile of crap. It was a complete mess in | beta and I was surprised when they finalized the code because it was | nowhere near ready for prime time. It was several years behind schedule. Remember Longhorn? Their first stab at Metro, but with the idea the whole OS would be .Net. They finally gave up on that in 2005. One of the Microsoft people in charge actually admitted that it was far too bloated to run on "existing hardware". So I guess Vista was somewhat of a mad rush, already 3 years late to fit into their cash-mooching schedule of a major update every 3 years. It would definitely explain the lack of stability. I was glad to help the company out in creating a fairly decent OS but to say the least, I never thought that Vista was ready for prime time. | Unless the process resets every time there is a considerably | large update (like 1803) and the system shrinks, I can't imagine it | doing anything other than consume the whole of free space. Sounds like a 1950s sci-fi movie. It eats the computer, then the house, then starts marauding through the neighborhood. It's just a matter of time before Apple does it, the way I see it. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On Sat, 12 May 2018 10:38:08 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:53:59 -0400, Doomsdrzej wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2018 11:32:47 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Mayayana wrote: Win98 basic install was about 700 MB. XP is about 1 GB. Vista/7 jumped up to 7-9 GB. At least 4 GB of that is the winsxs folder. They don't tell you, or give you a choice, in storing the install files. hard drives are *much* larger than they were back in win98 days or even win7 days. an extra few gig isn't worth worrying about anymore. I remember how proud I was of the fact that I got a $300 burse in 1995 (had the highest grade in Math in my district) that I used to buy a 500MB HD. It was so much larger than the 40MB HD one I was relying on until then. It's hard to imagine that people once managed to do as much as they did with so little space. I had a consulting engineering partner who insisted that all he wanted was 5 Mb. He was right royally annoyed when he found he could no longer buy one. Did he have to take a second mortgage on his house and buy a 10MB HD? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
MS Wish list.
On Sat, 12 May 2018 10:32:15 -0400, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2018 10:38:08 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:53:59 -0400, Doomsdrzej wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2018 11:32:47 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Mayayana wrote: Win98 basic install was about 700 MB. XP is about 1 GB. Vista/7 jumped up to 7-9 GB. At least 4 GB of that is the winsxs folder. They don't tell you, or give you a choice, in storing the install files. hard drives are *much* larger than they were back in win98 days or even win7 days. an extra few gig isn't worth worrying about anymore. I remember how proud I was of the fact that I got a $300 burse in 1995 (had the highest grade in Math in my district) that I used to buy a 500MB HD. It was so much larger than the 40MB HD one I was relying on until then. It's hard to imagine that people once managed to do as much as they did with so little space. I had a consulting engineering partner who insisted that all he wanted was 5 Mb. He was right royally annoyed when he found he could no longer buy one. Did he have to take a second mortgage on his house and buy a 10MB HD? You would have thought so from the way he carried on. The worst thing was that he wanted to apply the same rules for everyone. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|