A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Customizing Windows XP
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old February 26th 07, 07:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Ken Blake, MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,402
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

HEMI-Powered wrote:

It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista replaces
any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would expect MS to
support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for critical updates and
security patches, but not features or other kinds of bugs.



There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is* planning a Windows XP
SP3. It's currently planned for for the first half of next year. See
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lif...vicepacks.mspx

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


Ads
  #62  
Old February 26th 07, 08:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
D. Spencer Hines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...

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

Yes, I understand entirely.

I was using 98 for years before XP Pro SP2.

I'm not afraid -- just inquisitive. g


Sorry, bad choice of words on my part. One big problem with the
written word is that intonation and body language is impossible,
we're left with just BS like grin to tell people our feelings.
You came across - to me - like you were getting a panic attack.


Nope. I never have those. I'm afraid I sometimes induce them in others,
however. I'm not talking about you, of course.

I'll try to be more sensitive, DSH.


G

No Harm Done. Are you a New Sensitive Male? G

XP Pro SP2 is phat.

Microsoft did an excellent job on this one.

DSH

Thanks.

XP Pro SP2 is phat though.

DSH

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...

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

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...

Right now,
my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs
HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer
supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray
coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still getting
security fixes as well, and I think it will continue to do
so.

I didn't know that.

I'm running XP Pro SP2...

Can it be far behind?

Two years at most?

Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?

It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
replaces any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would
expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
critical updates and security patches, but not features or
other kinds of bugs.

When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the
babbling of someone who is trying to scare her into
upgrading, who would be me, and I am not easily intimidated.
As to SP2, I have seen nothing. Still, what exactly are you
afraid of? I know many people leading perfectly happy lives
with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP Home or Pro native, no
SPs.

--
HP, aka Jerry

--
HP, aka Jerry



  #63  
Old February 26th 07, 08:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
D. Spencer Hines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

All I'm saying is that some judges just do NOT like BIGNESS in BUSINESS --
they think it's inherently bad.

SO, they hate Microsoft.

Bill Gates was not sensitive enough to those political currents and did NOT
grease enough Congressional palms with campaign contributions and schmooze
with politicians -- admittedly an execrable pastime.

Microsoft then became a target for all sorts of crazies -- and is now
restricted from including all sorts of things, which we actually need, in
the OS.

We have to buy them as expensive add-ons and since they are made by
different companies -- some of them fly-by-nights -- the OS and the apps are
no longer seamless and singing from the same sheet of music -- which is a
Perpetual PITA.

NOW, Bill and Melinda are doing a First-Rate job of giving away money and
building Corporate Goodwill for Microsoft, which is all to the good -- for
consumers, employees, stockholders -- and all Americans -- because Microsoft
is one of our most important corporations.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...

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

It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are
convinced that Big Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must
be brought to heel -- by said Judges -- or broken up if they
fail to heel. It's often an eat the Golden Goose solution.

Let's try to keep politics out of this, OK?


Politics can NEVER be kept out of such weighty matters.
Politics are where we work these matters out.


I am big believer in dissent being the only true and useful tool
to initiate real change. It was certainly true during the
Declaration of Independence day, the Revolutionary War, the
Constitutional Convention, development of political parties in
this country, and on to this very day. If the dissent, with its
obligatory political side, can be thoughtful and factual, and not
emotional, personal, and purely party politics, then I am not
only all for it, I will join in, as I have here. This thread,
unlike many, has not resulted in any flaming nor smart-ass
comments so far.

What I would NOT want to see is an American government political
debate, for example, whether it was liberal judges appointed
presumeably from some prior Democratic president's administration
that allowed MS off the hook or not, I would rather describe it
as I did, as in "the court hearing the MS monopoly case, brought
my Netscape, and X, Y and Z was decided in favor of MS because it
demonstrated A, B, anc C." and just leave off the left-wing part,
which I can't even verify.

So, let's dissent within the charter of this NG and not go
negative. No, I'm NOT suggesting that you are, just stating my
preferance. Threads can go anyway they like, I guess they have a
First Amendment as well! now, a grin

I will make only one
comment about the courts: they are highly divided as to
whether anyone's EULA is or is not enforceable because they
ALL violate one main tenate of a contract, and that is the
right of either party to modify the contract prior to
agreeing. There never has been any law or rulings that force
the other party to agree to the changes, but full agreement
on the wording, as well as full agreement on what contract
attorney's call "consideration", which often means money but
doesn't always mean that.

--
HP, aka Jerry



  #64  
Old February 26th 07, 08:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
D. Spencer Hines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

More Precisely & Succinctly:

"SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H CY2008. This
date is preliminary."

Note The TWO Caveats -- "currently planned for" and "preliminary".

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx

Astute weasel-wording.

My congratulations to the writers. Trap-door escape hatches galore.

DSH
-------------------------------------------

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

HEMI-Powered wrote:

It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista replaces
any major maintence [sic] releases of XP. But, I would expect MS to
support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for critical updates and
security patches, but not features or other kinds of bugs.



There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is* planning a Windows
XP SP3. It's currently planned for for [sic] the first half of next year.
See
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lif...vicepacks.mspx

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



  #65  
Old February 27th 07, 12:41 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

Today, Ken Blake, MVP made these interesting comments ...

HEMI-Powered wrote:

It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
replaces any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would
expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
critical updates and security patches, but not features or
other kinds of bugs.



There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is* planning
a Windows XP SP3. It's currently planned for for the first
half of next year. See
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lif...vicepacks.mspx

Ken, you are constrained by an NDA, so, no, there are no guarantees
and if you actually knew one way or another, you couldn't say. MS
will decide if it is most cost effective to continue to piecemeal
critical fixes or create a SP, or simply abandom millions of
customers. I'm not an MVP and don't want to be, but have there been
new SPs AFTER the release of an entirely new version?

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #66  
Old February 27th 07, 12:44 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

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

More Precisely & Succinctly:

"SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H
CY2008. This date is preliminary."

Note The TWO Caveats -- "currently planned for" and
"preliminary".

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx

Astute weasel-wording.

My congratulations to the writers. Trap-door escape hatches
galore.


Spence, notice also that the wording is in tiny letters and not
highlighted nor is there a link to go to for more info. MS will
decide to do an SP3 for only one of two reasons: 1) it costs less
than continuing HUNDREDS of individual patches or 2) Vista flops.
2) isn't all that likely, but the real thing is a combo of both.
I know of NO companies who will pre-announce future product
offerings or some sort of warrenty that far ahead.

DSH
-------------------------------------------

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

HEMI-Powered wrote:

It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
replaces any major maintence [sic] releases of XP. But, I
would expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
critical updates and security patches, but not features or
other kinds of bugs.



There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is*
planning a Windows XP SP3. It's currently planned for for
[sic] the first half of next year. See
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lif...vicepacks.mspx

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







--
HP, aka Jerry
  #67  
Old February 27th 07, 12:48 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

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

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...

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

Yes, I understand entirely.

I was using 98 for years before XP Pro SP2.

I'm not afraid -- just inquisitive. g


Sorry, bad choice of words on my part. One big problem with
the written word is that intonation and body language is
impossible, we're left with just BS like grin to tell
people our feelings. You came across - to me - like you were
getting a panic attack.


Nope. I never have those. I'm afraid I sometimes induce them
in others, however. I'm not talking about you, of course.

I'll try to be more sensitive, DSH.


G

No Harm Done. Are you a New Sensitive Male? G


Not that I am aware of grin back at ya But, there are times
when my people skills fail me, which is why I apologized in
advance in case I'd spoken out of turn.

XP Pro SP2 is phat.


I resisted SP2 for about 15 months. My first 6 months or so, even
then, were majorly traumatic and I have no desire to repeat that
experience again until the jury is at least partially in on
Vista. Again, I don't beta test with my Visa card and I don't try
to fix things that aren't broken nor do I invite visits from
Murphy. Other than that, yeah, SP2 is phatter than SP1 which was
phatter than XP which was phatter than ME which was phatter than
98 SE which was ... back to Bill Gates DOS 1.0. Oh, well, ya gots
ta run something! grin again

Microsoft did an excellent job on this one.

DSH

Thanks.

XP Pro SP2 is phat though.

DSH

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...

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

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...

Right now,
my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20
gigs HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no
longer supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the
systray coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still
getting security fixes as well, and I think it will
continue to do so.

I didn't know that.

I'm running XP Pro SP2...

Can it be far behind?

Two years at most?

Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?

It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
replaces any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would
expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
critical updates and security patches, but not features or
other kinds of bugs.

When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the
babbling of someone who is trying to scare her into
upgrading, who would be me, and I am not easily
intimidated. As to SP2, I have seen nothing. Still, what
exactly are you afraid of? I know many people leading
perfectly happy lives with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP
Home or Pro native, no SPs.

--
HP, aka Jerry

--
HP, aka Jerry







--
HP, aka Jerry
  #68  
Old March 1st 07, 08:51 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Homer J. Simpson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

have there been new SPs AFTER the release of an entirely new version?

Yes, in almost every single instance. I don't have actual release dates in
front of me, but going strictly from memory, I'm pretty sure NT4 SP6 (or its
subsequent re-release) came out after Windows 2000, and 2000 SP4 (or, again,
its subsequent re-release) came out after long after XP.

And I fully anticipate a third service pack for XP. 2003 SP2 has been at an
RC level for a few months now.


  #69  
Old March 3rd 07, 09:46 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:11:24 -0000, "Robert Moir"
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...


I'm using 32G, and that's working so far - but then I make a point of
storing games, data, music, videos, pictures, downloads, desktop etc.
off C: on other (safer) HD volumes.

By the same token, on XP that C: would only be 8G.



--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

  #70  
Old March 3rd 07, 10:06 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:46:20 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

When XP came out, that 8G footprint was 20% of a 40G HD.
When Vista came out, that 32G footprint is 10% of a 320G HD.

So the head travel within a small C: should be similar, even though
the volume is bigger, and the heat travel required to step over the C:
to where your data, games etc. start is about the same too.

Then again, if you try to use a crappy "new" laptop with 40G HD as a
"desktop replacement", then YMMV. Laptop specs always cost more and
suck rocks, especially when it comes to HD capacity.

I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista


I wouldn't upgrade a working XP system to Vista, just I wouldn't have
upgraded previous OSs on PCs that were running them.

OTOH, I would refuse to accept delivery of a "new" PC running XP.

Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.


I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but Microsoft
needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows" and
other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it.


TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:


1. ------------

Support for new hardware initiatives, such as ReadyBoost USB sticks,
hybrid hard drives (that contain flash memory onboard), auxilliary
displays if that rocks your boat, etc.

2. ------------

Some safety clue that programs should not automatically get the same
rights as the user, even if the user is "admin"; i.e. UAC, IE 7
protected mode, etc. Right now this is a pain point, but when sware
switched to being written for Vista, the pain will ease and the
usefullness will increase.

3. ------------

Better UI - and by that I mean more effective UI, not just "prettier"
(I generally don't use Aero even on Aero-capable hardware because I
prefer the cheaper Home Basic). File specs are now "live", i.e. each
node in the path is a navigable drop-down list. Renaming files now
preserves the file name extension (i.e. you can change it but it's not
part of the initial selected text). It's now far easier to tell
whether your LAN is sexposing file shares, and what they are.

4.
Related to 3; many aspects of PC use are now better explained in terms
that are easy, yet not patronizingly dummied-down. For folks short of
the full geek vocabulary and skill set, this is quite a win.

5.
Several new functionalities that were either absent in XP, or were
fairly useless "stubs", rather like DOS 4's DOSShell. Performance and
reliability centers, WinPE, WinRE... Recovery Console just grew up
from being a useful bunch of preset tricks to a proper maintenance OS
at last. That alone is a reason to use Vista, especially for NTFS.

I'll leave 6 to 10 as "an exercise for the reader" ;-)

And so forth.
I haven't seen it.


A lot of this stuff, you won't see until you live with and use it a
bit more intensively that the average magazine reviewer.

More to the point is where you are in your PC's lifeline. If you have
a 2-year-old PC you don't expect to be using by 2009, then there's
less reason to consider Vista, but if building a PC in 2007 that you;d
want to still be using in 2010, you should insist on it.

Right now, what kills Win98? Inability to natively use USB sticks,
cameras and other storage, poor or absent support for today's USB
printers and scanners, no support for HD 137G, issues with fast
processors... that's where a "new" 2007 XP PC will be by 2010.



--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

  #71  
Old March 3rd 07, 10:25 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
D. Spencer Hines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

My box is less than two years old and could run on Vista spec-wise. It was
top-of-the line when I bought it in November 2005.

BUT, I think XP Pro SP2 is quite sophisticated and sufficient for my needs.

When I need a new box in late 2009 or early 2010 perhaps Vista will have
some of the kinks ironed out.

I'm going to wait for the dust to settle.

Good Post on your part.

Thanks.

DSH

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in
message
...

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:46:20 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

When XP came out, that 8G footprint was 20% of a 40G HD.
When Vista came out, that 32G footprint is 10% of a 320G HD.

So the head travel within a small C: should be similar, even though
the volume is bigger, and the heat travel required to step over the C:
to where your data, games etc. start is about the same too.

Then again, if you try to use a crappy "new" laptop with 40G HD as a
"desktop replacement", then YMMV. Laptop specs always cost more and
suck rocks, especially when it comes to HD capacity.

I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista


I wouldn't upgrade a working XP system to Vista, just I wouldn't have
upgraded previous OSs on PCs that were running them.

OTOH, I would refuse to accept delivery of a "new" PC running XP.

Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.


I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but Microsoft
needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows" and
other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it.


TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:


1. ------------

Support for new hardware initiatives, such as ReadyBoost USB sticks,
hybrid hard drives (that contain flash memory onboard), auxilliary
displays if that rocks your boat, etc.

2. ------------

Some safety clue that programs should not automatically get the same
rights as the user, even if the user is "admin"; i.e. UAC, IE 7
protected mode, etc. Right now this is a pain point, but when sware
switched to being written for Vista, the pain will ease and the
usefullness will increase.

3. ------------

Better UI - and by that I mean more effective UI, not just "prettier"
(I generally don't use Aero even on Aero-capable hardware because I
prefer the cheaper Home Basic). File specs are now "live", i.e. each
node in the path is a navigable drop-down list. Renaming files now
preserves the file name extension (i.e. you can change it but it's not
part of the initial selected text). It's now far easier to tell
whether your LAN is sexposing file shares, and what they are.

4.
Related to 3; many aspects of PC use are now better explained in terms
that are easy, yet not patronizingly dummied-down. For folks short of
the full geek vocabulary and skill set, this is quite a win.

5.
Several new functionalities that were either absent in XP, or were
fairly useless "stubs", rather like DOS 4's DOSShell. Performance and
reliability centers, WinPE, WinRE... Recovery Console just grew up
from being a useful bunch of preset tricks to a proper maintenance OS
at last. That alone is a reason to use Vista, especially for NTFS.

I'll leave 6 to 10 as "an exercise for the reader" ;-)

And so forth.
I haven't seen it.


A lot of this stuff, you won't see until you live with and use it a
bit more intensively that the average magazine reviewer.

More to the point is where you are in your PC's lifeline. If you have
a 2-year-old PC you don't expect to be using by 2009, then there's
less reason to consider Vista, but if building a PC in 2007 that you;d
want to still be using in 2010, you should insist on it.

Right now, what kills Win98? Inability to natively use USB sticks,
cameras and other storage, poor or absent support for today's USB
printers and scanners, no support for HD 137G, issues with fast
processors... that's where a "new" 2007 XP PC will be by 2010.

--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -



  #72  
Old March 3rd 07, 11:16 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:02:09 -0600, Adam Albright wrote:

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.


Nope - if anything, the contrary maye be true.

There are various kinds of programming bloat:
- lines of code, as you mention
- level of code, i.e. how much runtime library baggage
- size of data sets, variables and resources

When I was coding, efficiency was king. One could feel individual
T-states, so doing the same thing in fewer instructions was a big
priority... I spent a weekend revising a screen dump routine in Z80
assembler to get it down from 1027 bytes to 1024 bytes, which I
eventually did by using self-modifying code instead of repeated branch
logic within the "engine". Why? Because 1024 bytes fiits into an
otherwise-unused printer buffer, whereas 1027 bytes would have to be
loaded into memory reserved for use against general availability.

So we had lots of great programming tricks to save space; using two
digits for year values, 16-bit cluster addressing, "lean" code that
performed no sanity-checking before throwing stuff into buffers, etc.

See the problem yet? You bet; all of these cool byte-saving methods
came to bite is in the ass later; Y2k, problems with "large" HDs over
512M, 8G, 32G, 137G etc. and code exploits that escalate the risk of
"viewing a picture" to "running raw code".

So you may have a "lean" OS to start with, but pretty soon it's
bloated with ad-hoc emergency patches, extra layers of code to
validate stuff before the system is allowed to use it, hectic Y2k
revisions, kludges to support "large: drives, etc. Better to have
done it properly in the first place, I'd say.


The same thing applies to layers of code.

Initially, the system was so simple that the programmer could fully
understand it, right down to volts, wires and T-states. The
programmer would bridge all the abstraction layers from "what the user
wants to do", all the way down to the actual instructions passed to
the processor. I hot coder could hold all that in his/her brain.

Both the system and usages have become too complex to manage in this
way; one person could not visualize the whole of MS Office, and code
that down all the way to raw opcodes. Combining multiple programmers
into teams can hold larger projects in the collective brain, but
introduces inter-brain interface errors. Things fall apart.

Instead, modern software is created in layers, which each layer
developing a higher level of abstraction basen on the layer beneath.
So a designer may understand "what the user wants to do" and drill
this down to drawings of dialog boxes and UI elements, then the next
layer visually assembles these out of library code, then the next
layer writes the libraries in a form that is abstracted from actual
hardware, then there are API calls, device drivers, compilers that
understand processor feature sets, etc.

Each layer limits the kind of cock-ups you can make. For example, a
UI designer is not in a position to make assumptions about CPU
instruction order that fail when new multi-core processors issue
instructions out of sequence, etc.

With this layering, comes layer bloat. You may have to bind a
67-function library but only need 1 of those functions, etc. But if
this layer bloat means less chance of unchecked buffers or wildly
inappropriate code logic, it's bloat well spent.


Another way to look at this is one of raw scalability and error %
rates. If I asked you to do something dumb and easy, e.g. write down
your name again and again, how many times would you do this before
making your first mistake? Well, maybe a drunk will go wrong 1 in 10
attempts, and a Mensa athlete may mess up 1 in 10 000 attempts.

But if I'm executing those instructions at a rate of a million per
second, the difference betwen best-case and worst-case may be crashing
every hour vs. crashing every minute. Neither is good enough to ship,
so how does one attain superhuman low error rates?

By breaking things down into human-sized chunks, and designing the
interface betwen these chunks to be easily understood, rather than
machine-efficient - and that is how modern sware works.


Hardware gets faster, but the burden of complexity (and the
consequences of exploitable errors) gets worse. So if you have a
choice between fast and buggy vs. bloated but solid, the smart money
is on the latter. Consider VL-bus and PCI as an example.

VL-bus was a hasty generic standard for fast 32-bit/33MHz data
transfers to graphic cards, as was needed for efficiency in Windows
3.yuk in the era of the 33MHz 486.

PCI was developed in a similar time frame, but with loftier
objectives; support multiple devices at a consistent 33MHz
irrespective of processor base speed, allow inteligent
self-configuration via machine dialogs that were later wrapped by
Win95 as Plug-n-Play, etc.

For the first year, VL-bus was king; it was cheaper, and good enough,
whereas PCI was "bloated", possibly less efficient because it was
unlinked from the CPU clock, network cards were still buggy, etc.

But which do we still use over a decade later?

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.


Yes and no; it depends on what type of bloat you have. Layer bloat
can introduce bugs, but is far more likely to remove the potential for
the most destructive low-level bugs. Capacity bloat removes future
limitations, kludges, and the bugs that can arise from these. Only an
increase in the raw "number of lines" within the same level of
abstraction and vertical slice of functionality, will automatically
infer more bugs. More to the point is that the introduction of brand
new code is more likely to bring new bugs.

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.


Actually, no; each new OS or SP is an oportunity to re-design and
re-write sections of code so that entire classes of bugs may be swept
away. We've seen this with XP SP2 and IE 7, where new bugs found
after these releases often didn't apply to the new code base, even
though it preceded the discovery of the bug.

I expect Vista will go some ways to solving some of XP's worst
exploitabilities, both at the machine and user level. However, Vista
may bring new problems of the future, where new functionalities and
features are added, so it's not as "safe" as an SP, perhaps.

For example, Vista stresses search and runs a lot of file-groping code
when displaying contents of folders, and in the background while
indexing etc. Any defects within these internal code surfaces could
allow zero-integration malware to persist across runtimes, and simply
creating a malware file with a likely-looking name could allow it to
spoof another file when found via search, vs. explicit filespec.

There is nothing wrong with adding new features.


Er... that depends on how fully-assed the design and implication
awareness may have (not) been when they were created.

For example, auto-running macros in "documents" was a stunningly bad
"feature" that led to several years of macro malware.

For example, treating unsolicited "message text" as HTML, complete
with autorunning scripts, in the same way as Internet web pages is a
stunningly bad "feature' that should never survive the planning phase.

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.


If you rely on DEP OptOut, as most folks currently do not, then be
aware that Opera cannot be protected by hardware DEP and is excluded
from OptOut cover due to use of aspack or similar.

You'll see the difference immediately between lean mean fast running
code and bloatware.


Whatever. I have little or no sympathy with folks who install a
2007-2012 OS on a 2004 PC and wonder why it's "slow"... generally,
it's best to avoid significant new sware that is more than a year or
two newer than your hardware.

The complexity equation means that machine efficience is no longer the
main issue. In fact, simply standing still on the same sware base and
waiting for 12 months of hardware performance evolution (even at
today's slow pace) will resolve many "bloat" issues.

So if you have a sweetly-running XP PC, stay on it for now. If your
PC's an old crock, you could build a new Vista PC now if you have to,
or a few months later if you want to avoid some hassles with useless
vendors (hello HP, Samsung, Nero...) who seem to have been caught
unawares by Vista's release.



--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

  #73  
Old March 3rd 07, 11:31 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:27:34 -0000, "HEMI-Powered"
Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message


Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?


It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista replaces
any major maintence releases of XP.


I think there will be an SP3. Vista is not free, and SPs are, and SPs
are also designed to be as low-impact as possible by "not adding new
features", etc. A new OS OTOH has to have new features to attract
sales, and is expected to do more than just fix the old OS.

But, I would expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely
for critical updates and security patches


It's the other way round. An SP is more than just a collection of bug
fixes rolled up into a single large install for convenience; it can
also fix things by broader recoding without this having to work with
the rest of the old OS code base.

Because SPs are free, they can be used to set a new baseline for
support. MS can support XP for X years from now, but that doesn't
oblige them to support all SP levels; typically, only the last 1 or 2
SP levels will be supported.

This creates a temptation to up-version subsystems such as IE, Media
Player, DirectX etc. so those teams can drop support for earlier
versions. That clashes with the "no new features" rule, and can bloat
the new OS code base beyond the capabilities of the oldest hardware
that shipped with that OS. We saw that with the security roll-up for
Win98, where the automated install would ram in new Media Player and
DirectX, irrespective of whether the PC had enough RAM for the new
Media Player or hardware driver support for the new DirectX.

So yes; there will likely be an XP SP3, if only so that MS can drop
support for the SP2 code base while still "supporting XP".

When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the babbling of
someone who is trying to scare her into upgrading, who would be me,
and I am not easily intimidated. As to SP2, I have seen nothing.
Still, what exactly are you afraid of? I know many people leading
perfectly happy lives with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP Home or
Pro native, no SPs.


XP "Gold" and SP1 are death-traps if installed and used in default
manner, because they are open to clickless attacks through RPC and
LSASS defects that are exposed without firewall protection.

Any IE/OE/Outlook2000+ combinations older than XP are lethal too, due
to clickless attacks via the MIME-spoofing defect, if nothing else.

If you don't expose your PC to the Internet, then the risks are a lot
lower. These days most folks seem to think "PC" as synonymous with
Internet activity; in that context, anything older than XP SP2 is
simply unfit for use unless you have the smarts to protect it.

If you want native USB storage support, you'd want WinME or later.

If you want 137G, you'd want XP SP2 or later.



--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

  #74  
Old March 3rd 07, 11:46 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Hertz_Donut
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?


"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:11:24 -0000, "Robert Moir"
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...


I'm using 32G, and that's working so far - but then I make a point of
storing games, data, music, videos, pictures, downloads, desktop etc.
off C: on other (safer) HD volumes.

By the same token, on XP that C: would only be 8G.



--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -


I am running Vista Business (32 bit) and Office 2007 Professional, and
together they take up less than 10 GB.

Honu



  #75  
Old March 3rd 07, 12:07 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:36:07 -0000, "HEMI-Powered"
Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
Keith Schaefer wrote:


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


I use large hard drives and screens to do more stuff, not the same
stuff in the same space - so that is one reason why I reject the "oh,
we have lots of space, let's waste it" argument.

Vista's a bit better at this than previous Windows, to some extent.
At least it's stopped being so dumb as to give IE x% of the HD
capacity to hold yesteryear's web pages - at LAST that stupid
non-logic was killed in IE 7!

I don't mind assigning 32G to Vista, but it had better stay comfy
within that space, without any dumb-ass "hard-coded to be on system
volume" workspace bloatage. SF,SG.

Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer
to offer more customization at initial setup.


What I referred to as "the new MS arrogance" has eroded that, starting
with WinME's Media Player, Movie Maker and System Restore.

Up until then, users could choose which components they wanted to
install. In WinME, you could still choose not to install the old and
tiny things such as Cacl, Notepad and Charmap, but were forced to
swallow the larger and often less useful frills.

XP gave you even less control; you can't even install to a different
base directory name without having to resort to an answer file.

Vista's more "closed" at this interactive UI level, but at least the
pro-grade installation tools are now avialable to users who aren't
hi-volume OEMs. WAIK includes everything you need to build and
maintain custom installations, though the answer file changes seem to
concentrate on a few toenails while leaving the bulk of the body Vista
as a single install-everything lump.

MS seems to scorn end-users, aside from dummying down things into
baby-speak. XP was the nadir in this trend; Vista gets better. With
XP, if you weren't a pro-IT sysadmin or bulk OEM, you were assumed to
have no business controlling Windows on your PC(s).

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.


There shouldn't be (consumer rights perspective), but there inevitably
will be (basic complexity theory).


We've allowed the sware industry to re-write the rulebook on product
defects and recalls. If a dangerous defect arose in a "real" product,
the vendor would have to ship it back and replace it at their expense.
So folks who build "real" things try real hard not to screw up.

But a sware vendor just has to slap up a copy of a "fix" on a web site
somewhere, and it's up to the consumer to muster the resources to
download it and deploy it. Any consequent damage that arises from
this is also the user's burden to bear.

Not only that, but sware vendors can leverage these endless defects
and patches into a tighter dependecy on the vendor. It's like Ford
saying "give us your address and garage key so we can walk in whenever
we like to fix any defects in the car we sold you", and then "we need
your house key too, so we can verify you bought your car from us, else
we will refuse to fix it and may stop it from running".

I have a major problem with the "rights" that sware vendors assign
themselves via the EUL"A"s they unilaterally impose.


That's the "consumer rights" perspective. The "complexity theory"
perspective paints another picture entirely.

When you machine a piece of iron and a piece of wood, and combine them
to make an axe, there's only so much you can screw up. The wood will
always do what wood does, and the iron will always do what iron does.

With sware, there's no inherent material properties to rely on. If 5%
of the "content" of an axe is human invention, then a 1:1000 error
rate will mean almost all axes sold on the market will work. When you
build sware content that is 100% human invention, the same 1:1000
error rate bites deep. If you scale up from an axe to a car, you'd
still be OK; most cars will work reasonably well for most of the time.
but scale software up from DOS to Vista, or if you like from Notepad
to Office, that error rate meas there will always be bugs that matter.

What makes bugs matter a lot more, is:
- poorly-compartmentalized design
- poor file type discipline
- poor data vs. code distinction
- extensible parsers and liberal code re-use
- pervasive Internet access
- pervasive wireless access
- automatic content processing
- poor risk descriptrion in the UI
- actual risk is not bounded to this described risk

Some of the above are inevitable, but others are not. Windows does as
badly as it does partly as a result of unsafe design.

The other reason that bugs matter, is that there's an industry
dedicated to finding and exploiting these bugs. Most of the attention
of this industry is aimed at the most pervasive of software, which is
Windows, but as Windows gets harder to exploit, so attention turns to
the next-bigges target; the most common edge-facing 3rd-party
applications for Windows, and after that, the minority platforms.


As a final PoC, proof-read this post for typos (code defects) and
ambiguous meanings (design defects or "implication blindness"), then
consider the impact if this were program code. Having proof-read this
post and found "all" the bugs, get a buddy to do the same. How many
did you miss? Now scale this up to all the posts in a week's traffic
in this news group, and require all of these to be defect-free before
you'd consider that mass of code "fit to ship" as a new OS :-)



--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.