Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

Hi Adam:

A printout of the Fortran used to land the LEM is on display at the
Museum of Science in Boston, as well as the core memory from on the
onboard computer. In those days they were still using magnetic core
technology.

Your comparison to Windows is incorrect. The Fortran that landed the LEM
didn't have a GUI, a media player, a web browser, a defragmenter, a
firewall, etc. etc. which users demand today. Heck, it didn't need to do
anything other than its specific purpose.

Earl Grey

Adam Albright wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:11:24 -0000, "Robert Moir"
wrote:

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.


True enough, I gave Windows a 50 GB partition to play with.

What gripes me as a old dog seat of the pants programmer from way back
is Windows is beyond bloated. Far beyond. Somebody said 500 million
lines of code? I don't know if that's true, but BIG sure describes
Windows Vista.

A sobering thought... many of your are probably too young to remember
or weren't even alive when NASA way back in 1969 landed men on the
moon. The computer onboard that got them there and back (actually
there were three) had less computing power than today's average
desktop caculator.

Back then "programmers" knew how to write tight code. They had too,
not much memory to play with. Today's generation who fancy themselves
"software engineers" don't know how to write tight compact code. They
only know how to write bloatware and need hundreds of thousands of
lines of code, sometimes millions. This is progress?

No it isn't for one simple reason. We're all human. Humans make
mistakes. Its in our nature. The point is the more lines of code you
have the more prone you are to introducing mistakes. If Vista is
anywhere near as big as some claim that means even if it is 99% error
free there are still many thousands, likely tens of thousands of lines
of buggy programming, much of it yet still to surface. Hackers will
find it and exploit it. Take that to the bank.

Nonsense!

The Burden Of Proof is on Microsoft to show US why we should buy Vista.

WE are the clients, the consumers and the customers ---- THEY have the
obligation to sell US -- NOT the other way around.

VERY Poor Marketing Rollout for VISTA.

The Rollout for even Windows 95 was far better.

Heads should roll at Redmond.

DSH

"Ronnie Vernon MVP" wrote in message
...

Do your own research! How are the users here supposed to know your likes,
dislikes, and how you work. After you get the list together, then you can
come back and tell us the ten best reasons you like Vista.

Windows Vista: Home Page:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...a/default.mspx

--
Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

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

Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space
after installation is complete, depending on what is installed.

But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed
and many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB.

What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called
Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it.

I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to
hear them.

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. ------------

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

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

And so forth.

I haven't seen it.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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?

Well-Stated!

Bravo Zulu!

DSH

"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...

Back then "programmers" knew how to write tight code. They had to,
not much memory to play with. Today's generation who fancy themselves
"software engineers" don't know how to write tight compact code. They
only know how to write bloatware and need hundreds of thousands of
lines of code, sometimes millions. This is progress?

No it isn't for one simple reason. We're all human. Humans make
mistakes. Its in our nature. The point is the more lines of code you
have the more prone you are to introducing mistakes. If Vista is
anywhere near as big as some claim that means even if it is 99% error
free there are still many thousands, likely tens of thousands of lines
of buggy programming, much of it yet still to surface. Hackers will
find it and exploit it. Take that to the bank.

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software
called Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't
heard it.
I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to
hear them.

You won't hear them from me. I'm hardly a fan of Vista.

It does have some nice ideas, even if they might not be implemented all that
well. It does have some incremental improvements over XP in some areas, as
well it might given how long it took to make. You'll have to move or give up
on Windows eventually if you want to keep running new apps.

But compelling reasons to buy at the moment? Let me know if you ever find
any.

Yours is a very honest, straightforward answer -- the first one I've
received....

After all the pompous bafflegab.

Thank you kindly.

Comments below.

DSH

"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:46:20 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

wrote:

Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space
after
installation is complete, depending on what is installed.

But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed
and
many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB.

What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called
Vista
will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it.

I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to hear
them.

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.

Me too, I'm also pro Microsoft, a long time user and stockholder.

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

I can't give you five "good" reasons. That begs the question why I and
others did upgrade. Ok, a fair question.

For me, and I'm sure it is true for a lot of people I upgraded for a
single reason, I sometimes still dabble in writing code, I'm still
fairly active in creating web content and since I also author a lot of
DVD content I NEED to see how each new OS performs. As simple as that.

Fair Enough.

While Vista is being touted as a new "major" release, I don't see it
that way. To me and to many, it is mostly a face lift and a needed
one. Windows in XP was getting tired looking and a bit behind the
times. Vista, especially if your system can support Aero is slicker,
visually. I guess that's a benefit, but hardly one that justifies the
cost of upgrading.

Bingo!

I use the Windows Classical look. I don't want my computer to look like a
jukebox. "Slicker" is not something I cherish -- either in friends, women,
politicians or operating systems.

Several little things have been fixed. About time! One thing I do like
is now with Windows Explorer when you drag and drop files you get a
tiny little pop up that TELLS you what folder you're over which avoids
a long time annoyance of mine, hoving over a folder and if you do it
hundreds of times a day it was too easy to be in a hurry and "drop"
the file in the folder above or below your intented target. Now that's
less likely.

That's Nice -- An enhancement.

Vista's help system is much improved over XP. So it now details about
where your files are for example when clicking on Start than All
Programs. No more annoying ever expanding to the right list that takes
over your monitor. Now each category opens in the same window and
scrolls in place. Takes a little getting used to, but better once you
get use to the change.

I prefer manuals -- which have been deep-sixed -- unless we pay extra.

Believe it or not (except for UAC) Vista is less of a nag and actually
tries to be more helpful. Little windows pop up and give more specific
information like when installing new hardware, information in Event
logs is better, Control Panel has undergone a major face lift.

I installed IE7 TWICE and pulled it OFF twice. HORRIBLE Nag -- worse than
three mothers-in-law at dinner. g

Now, Windows Update tells me I have HIDDEN a Critical Update and will surely
Go To Hell with viruses and Trojans beseiging me.

I don't need that. I am the master of my OWN computer.

I'm sure there are many improvements under the hood I haven't had time
to explore yet. These and any one of many little things may be enough
for somebody to consider upgrading a good idea. Asking to make a list
is simply too difficult not knowing everybody's likes or dislikes in
XP and saying if or not they've been fixed, or made worse.

If they are TRUE improvements they will be obvious. Take Microsoft Windows
Truefonts, for example --- THEY were an item worthy of listing on the TEN
bullet list at the time -- and finished Bitstream Fonts for most of us.

One thing that does seem to be a glaring mistake was forcing UAC on
users without asking if they wanted it forcing you to discover how to
turn UAC off as opposed to learning on to turn it on if you want it.

PRECISELY! That was similar to the Chinese Communists taking over Hong
Kong. VERY POOR MARKETING and STRATEGY by Microsoft -- HEADS SHOULD ROLL.
You simply don't treat Americans like that -- or anyone else for that
matter. I ran into it on IE7 and trashed it.

Bill Gates' departure from the hands-on led to these disasters?

I bet that will get changed. Quick. Its ****ing off a lot of users.

Too slow for me. That's why I'll be waiting for SP2 -- AND the software
manufactures to catch up, change their drivers, work out bugs and so forth.

You were RIGHT -- you didn't even come up with FIVE Good Reasons. g

But Thanks Anyway.

Cheers,

DSH

I find it interesting that people on here are so upset about how microsoft
is marketing Vista. They obviously did their job as you do know about it
and people are talking about it. What are you hoping for? Better
commercials? LOL

Jeff


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

The Burden Of Proof is on Microsoft to show US why we should buy Vista.

WE are the clients, the consumers and the customers ---- THEY have the
obligation to sell US -- NOT the other way around.

VERY Poor Marketing Rollout for VISTA.

The Rollout for even Windows 95 was far better.

Heads should roll at Redmond.

DSH

"Ronnie Vernon MVP" wrote in message
...

Do your own research! How are the users here supposed to know your likes,
dislikes, and how you work. After you get the list together, then you can
come back and tell us the ten best reasons you like Vista.

Windows Vista: Home Page:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...a/default.mspx

--
Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

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

Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space
after installation is complete, depending on what is installed.

But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed
and many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB.

What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called
Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it.

I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to
hear them.

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. ------------

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

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

And so forth.

I haven't seen it.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

BINGO!

My Sentiments Too.

DSH

"Robert Moir" wrote in message
...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software
called Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't
heard it.

I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to
hear them.

You won't hear them from me. I'm hardly a fan of Vista.

It does have some nice ideas, even if they might not be implemented all
that well. It does have some incremental improvements over XP in some
areas, as well it might given how long it took to make. You'll have to
move or give up on Windows eventually if you want to keep running new
apps.

But compelling reasons to buy at the moment? Let me know if you ever find
any.

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.

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?

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

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, I forget the fellow's name, but I imagine you would know,
but the one who predicted 20-30 years ago that computers would
double in performance every couple of years but be half as
expensive. What I think most users have seen, though, is that
increasingly bigger O/S's and apps, to support today's needs and
desire for GUI vs. command line stuff, and the changeover from
hardware being the big expense to the big money going for
programmers and marketing staff, whatever the hardware folks are
able to build gets chewed up within one cycle on O/S and apps, so
that today's 500 gig was yesteryear's 50 gigs and before that, it
was 150KB floppies. My first Apple II in 1978 cost me $400 for
just 48KB of memory, and the first floppy drives were $500 and
disks about 5 bucks apiece. But, an enormous amount of work could
be done with them, IF the user also wanted to be a programmer and
system support person.

I also remember the first IBM PX XTs we got at work with just 10
MEG HDs, and people thought those were the cat's meow! But, you
are right in that internal and even portable external HD space is
so cheap/gig that it is wiping out the optical market for
everythng except what people want to play in their cars or on TV.
Much easier to just buy another 200 gig external, plug it into
your USB port, dump your excess and backups, store it, and move
on.

--
HP, aka Jerry

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

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

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.

--
HP, aka Jerry