Gary,
Agree. We be InSync! I'll have to ruminate on Greg's share a bit more.
Yet, I suspect Greg is close to a truth............... :)
I run on OS for 20yrs before upgrading; I feel no breeze!
Best,
Duncan
On 09/06/2010 20:47, Gary Jackson wrote:
Hi Duncan !
My initial comment on the 1 TB HD was meant to be sardonic (?) I think
that is the right word. It does boggle my mind how much storage you can
cheaply put on a desktop PC for very little money. I remember paying
$1000 in 1985 or 86 for a 80 MB external HD for the Mac I had. lol
I agree that gaming is driving the desktop market. Boutique companies
like Digital Storm seem to be selling a lot of gaming rigs these days.
Like you said...no harm, no foul :-)
Gary
At 07:41 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by DSinc that this shall come to pass:
Gary,
Fair enough about the OS business. Trying not to sling and start a
war. Poking a bit. Sadly, I quite agree with you mostly!
About the Video Card business: I have zero clue. I sorta gave up
around "GF4-tech."
Seems the envelope will be driven by gamers that keep demanding,
"Real-Life!" I believe that "gaming" will probably generate most/all
hdw upgrades. Looks like the OS folk are just leeching quite a bit for
free ATM. ............ :)
No harm, no foul!
Duncan
On 09/06/2010 19:28, Gary Jackson wrote:
Hi Duncan,
Accepting, I guess yeah to a point. Not sure exactly where that point is
to be sure. But I do understand that code efficiency is not valued by
large corps for one thing. Another is that the OS of today does a lot
more then what say OS/2 or Win 3.1 could do. That has to make a
difference too. This is not to say that things couldn't be a lot
tighter, just that I am not real worried about the OS taking 14 GB or
even 30 GB.
Doesn't the nVidia gtx 480 come with something like 1.5 GB DDR5 ram ?
And systems with 4 GB+ ram are pretty much the norm on a 64 bit
OS...right ? My current PC has a Raid 1 setup. That was fairly exotic at
one time, not so anymore. I guess what I am saying is that old guys like
us tend to view things with the lens of what they were when we first
started....forgetting that things change, sometimes for the better and
sometimes not. That's all
Regards....Gary
At 06:09 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by DSinc that this shall come to
pass:
Gary,
So you are accepting OS Bloat? Like because you can now buy a 1TB hard
drive?
Sorry. I'm still in Soren's camp ATM.
I don't expect M$ to be perfect and/or crisp with their OS. I have
watched M$ OS since WFWG3.1 (actually MS-DOS v3.1)......... :)
M$ has done a poor job of bloat redux to my view. It seems that each
time technology gives us a bigger storage medium, M$ bloats to use as
much as it can; under the guise that, "Well, our users have moved to
this new/larger "footprint." Sadly, NOT all of "us".
Happy that you have really big HD's. I do not.
Interesting perspective BTW. Plan to sleep on this one!
Best,
Duncan
On 09/06/2010 18:36, Gary Jackson wrote:
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
