Agreed, but with a little different argument. Expecting Microsoft to keep the same OS footprint, while adding 8+ years of development, 8+ years additional built-in drivers (this one should not be underestimated--baked in driver support is a good chunk of total size), and thousands of features/enhancements (including "under the covers" security/functionality enhancements, and I'm not interested in the predictable "that feature doesn't count because _I_ don't use/like it" argument) is not realistic. It's also just part of the image-based installation approach. Remember how adding features in XP sometimes requires you to point to Windows installation files, then (depending) Service Pack files, etc...that's not ever required in Vista or W7. All components are a checkbox away from installed. Some may consider that bloat, but given that it makes enhances the user experience and is less error prone, I consider it progress. Disk space is cheap, and we just aren't talking about a meaningful amount of space here. If the base OS install was 100GB, I'd completely agree with you--but it isn't. If there was economic incentive to make their flagstream client operating system smaller, they would--but I really don't think that a "Only requires xGB of disk space installed!" sticker on the front of the box is going to net them any additional meaningful sales.
64MB? Is this a serious argument? Even pfSense dropped support for 64MB CF installs on their embedded releases, and it's little more than a NanoBSD kernel, pf, and some PHP scripts. You're more than welcome to go back a decade or more if you're adamant that an OS take up no more than 64MB, but get real. You can still fit the compressed image on a $0.50 dual layer DVD, or a $15 USB thumbdrive if you want to carry an image around. Frankly, if a system is so space constrained that 14GB is enough to lose sleep over, it doesn't have any business running Vista or W7--it should be on the trash pile, or stick with whatever OS version is already on it. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Gary Jackson > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:37 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes > > > Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too > concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" > I guess. > > > At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: > >OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should > >be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. > > > >I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several > >propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will > >end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. > > > >Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP > >installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh > >install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With > >drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. > > > >Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I > >used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for > >sure gets the prize. > > > >What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs > to be > >more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even > >seen with todays' standards. > > > >/s > > > > > > > > > >
