A good quality 1 TB drive can be had for less than $75. ----------- Brian
Sent from my iPhone On 2010-09-06, at 8:10 PM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote: > Freenas won't operate in 64mb now. Driver support does take up a good bit. > But think about functionality we just expect. Os/2 wasn't ready with a > wia/twain acquisition image. Dvd authoring and formatting capability, base > functionality, media center, codecs, hd audio engine, ipv6, etc > > 14gb is not a huge install. Test snow leopard (when done, on the mac I have, > its 21.2gb, and comes on a dual layer dvd). So there is that. Os's have > grown because discs ared cheap and people expect more. Out of the box, > microsoft gives youy almost 1gb of media (sample pictures, videos, tv, as > well as instructional videos.. See the mediacenter setup videos, etc which > ship with it) > > These things are designed to enhance the user experience. Giving up 14gb > isn't much, imho. Hell, 2tb drives are $99 right now down the street from > me. So, a gripe about 14g.. Shoot, I can get a 64gb ssd for sub $100 (well, > just this weekend). > > I have 0 complaints about 7, which really does live up to the hype. Hell, I > finally got the ceton cable card, and now, the damn thing sees all of my > cable networks, all the hd, and I can record four networks at once and mix it > out to my xboxes, or, storing the stuff on my whs, all others on my home > network see the recordings. And it rocks. > > I still have the cd for my last beta of os/2 merlin. I could put it in a vm. > But you know, the thing is, newer OS offers features I didn't even know I > wanted then. Now I couldn't imagine not having. > Sent via BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Greg Sevart" <ad...@xfury.net> > Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:56:46 > To: <hardware@hardwaregroup.com> > Reply-To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes > > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
