Flatter, uglier, lighter?

[escrow4]

The Operating System is how we interact with the applications. It's simply a tool we use to interact with the other applications we can use.

Making it "Lighter" should be of utmost importance. Why would you want an extremely complex and heavy OS? If the OS is 100GB and takes a minimum of an i3 to run then it's using a TON of resources and you ahven't even gotten to the primary part of using a computer, the applications.

No one just sits there in Windows and never runs something. Your goal is to run an application and with the OS taking up so many resources you'd need a far faster PC. What's the point of an extremely complex OS that's running Firefox, vs Windows 8.1 (or even a Linux Distro), that could do it using far less resources and thus allow you to do multiple things?

In the end, the OS lets us interact with the applications. It's goal should be to be light and capable. Making it heavy, complex, and take extra resources is in no way the ideal.

A heavier OS that is actually functional. Explorer still doesn't have tabs - why hasn't MS stuck features of Directory Opus in it? Why is the kernel still filled with 1995 cruft and old APIs? Why is the WDDM still 9.0c? Old hardware and expectations are holding us back, 100GB is nothing anymore. Software should push the hardware, is shouldn't be dragged down because of it.

 

[LPCTech]

New flat look on everything = Looks like safe mode all the time

Dont understand how it can be liked, but that is the nature of "preference" I guess.

What does not make sense is no options.

OSs that have lots of graphics have options to turn them off so you can have that flat whats the point of all my graphics hardware safe mode look.

Why would you make it default? I will be happy when MS gets out of the "safe mode" that their company seems to be in.

 

[Skaendo]

They're in 'safe mode' because they don't want another Windows 8.

 

[PliotronX]

New flat look on everything = Looks like safe mode all the time

Dont understand how it can be liked, but that is the nature of "preference" I guess.

What does not make sense is no options.

OSs that have lots of graphics have options to turn them off so you can have that flat whats the point of all my graphics hardware safe mode look.

Why would you make it default? I will be happy when MS gets out of the "safe mode" that their company seems to be in.

I noticed that, looks like Server 2012 with no redeeming qualities. I was surprised the Metro interface made it into 2012.

 

[Spungo]

I wouldn't blame the OS as much as I would blame all of the other crap. I'll open up task manager to see what's wasting resources:
AcroTray - Adobe Acrobat uses 1.3mb even when the program is closed. Imagine having a car that consumes fuel even when the car is not running.
Apple Chrome Dav is 2mb. I don't even know what that is.
Apple Push is 3mb. I'm not running any Apple software, so this is pretty much a trojan.
4 Google Chrome tabs consumes over 1gb of memory and 29 processes.
Microsoft Lync (MSN Messenger) takes 102mb. Back in 2000, someone would be fired if they created a messaging program this bloated.
3 instances of Windows Explorer consumes 100mb of memory.
Google Drive Sync is 54mb.
HP Utility Device Host (the printer) consumes 100mb when I'm not printing anything.
Nvidia Driver Helper is 7mb. Seriously, it takes 7mb to check if my drivers are up to date??


I'm guessing the source code to these programs looks something like this:

sub memory_leak {
   my x;
   my y;
   x = \y;
   y = \x;
}
while (1) {
   memory_leak()
}

 

[C1]

Ya, Ive noticed this, but it is happening everywhere (ie, across the board including stuffing everything from video clips to spyware in browsers; eg, the networks are getting ladened with trash trying to profile).

To me the OS is supposed to be transparent.

Important features should be :
- Fuctionality
- Reliability
- Interoperability
- Responsiveness

Many APS (like Adobe) are getting so gigantic they simply arent worth it - theyre more problem than their worth - even for free!. Also, what in the hell is with MS Office? 99% of the crap being added is not used by 99% of users.

I guess nothing has changed much over the decades. Mainly the operant behavior to try to sell is to add more versus actually make "it" better.

 

[sm625]

They always say its lighter, but it never is. What you have is classical bs, better known in the political sphere. Rest assured when all is said and done, Windows 10 installations will be bigger and more bloated than Windows 8. And they will have more processes, threads, and handles, chewing up more cpu cycles.

 

[Ketchup]

They always say its lighter, but it never is. ...

8 is lighter than 7, so you never know!

If MS had just given customers a choice (pretty and fat, ugly and thin, or some mix of the two) I think many people would be more embracing with 8, 8.1, and 10.

 

[Skaendo]

Out of curiosity, what is the footprint of a fresh Win10TP install?

 

[ArisVer]

11 GB without the latest updates, build 9841, on a VM.

 

[Skaendo]

11 GB without the latest updates, build 9841, on a VM.

That isn't terrible. I really hope that they figure out a way to update different than previous versions. Like actually 'deleting' the update files once they are applied.

That's prob my biggest issue with Windows. It's like they do it intentionally to consume more space so that it fragments files more so that the system slows to a crawl and makes people think they need to buy a new computer or OS. </conspiracy theory>

How big of a swap........ er, pagefile is it using/requiring?

 

[VirtualLarry]

8 is lighter than 7, so you never know!

I disagree. There are comprehensive benchmarks out there showing 7 benchmarks faster, except for perhaps BF4 on an FX CPU.

 

[ArisVer]

How big of a swap........ er, pagefile is it using/requiring?

Can't seem to find it, with some options enabled, but in the system properties it has 1152MB allocated. I have set 2GB of RAM in the VM.

 

[Skaendo]

Can't seem to find it, with some options enabled, but in the system properties it has 1152MB allocated. I have set 2GB of RAM in the VM.

So it could mean that the actual footprint is ~8GB for the OS itself? If so, that is really good.

 

[Ketchup]

I disagree. There are comprehensive benchmarks out there showing 7 benchmarks faster, except for perhaps BF4 on an FX CPU.

Wouldn't those have more to do with driver optimizations though?

 

[ArisVer]

So it could mean that the actual footprint is ~8GB for the OS itself? If so, that is really good.

Keep in mind that this is in a VM and I have only installed a couple of small programs in there. A normal installation should add a few GBs and the pagefile should be bigger with more RAM (correct?).

 

[DigDog]

skeuomorphism

word .. too .. complicated ..

 

[John Connor]

Can anyone describe why we are heading down this direction? Hardware is getting better all the time, power managment is getting better, but both apple and ms are destroying the cosmetics of their os's stating it is lighter, and uses less resources. Why?

Should they be going to better cosmetics that uses less resources?

Yeah, I'm disgusted with this look. I'll be using windows 7 for a loooong time. It will be like XP to most.

 

[PingSpike]

I don't know why people write off how much hard disk space windows wastes (much of it is in fact a complete waste). In the era of SSDs hard disk space is at a premium, wasted on old update files that cannot be removed. The base install is horrendous enough for what it gets you, but install the updates and watch the cancer grow. But Microsoft being behind the times is the norm. Maybe they'll get it under control just in time for 1TB SSDs to have become standard on craptops.

 

[Skaendo]

Keep in mind that this is in a VM and I have only installed a couple of small programs in there. A normal installation should add a few GBs and the pagefile should be bigger with more RAM (correct?).

I suppose it could. Even if it goes back up to around 11GB not including the pagefile it still isn't bad.
I have a new HDD coming for a spare laptop that I have laying around, so I may go ahead and get Win10TP to play around with it.
We also have to remember that this is a TP, and the actual release could be way different. In size and appearance.

 

[imagoon]

I don't know why people write off how much hard disk space windows wastes (much of it is in fact a complete waste). In the era of SSDs hard disk space is at a premium, wasted on old update files that cannot be removed. The base install is horrendous enough for what it gets you, but install the updates and watch the cancer grow. But Microsoft being behind the times is the norm. Maybe they'll get it under control just in time for 1TB SSDs to have become standard on craptops.

MS has a way built in to the default install a) clean updates b) clean up winSXS c) clean up the install stores d) remove features from the package stores.

Not sure what you are complaining about when you can strip windows 7 down to about 6GB or less. Our VDI image for windows 7 is 5.2GB, fully updated, prior to applications and I didn't even try "that hard."

 

[bbhaag]

I don't mind the look. Sure it's flatter but ugly is a subjective term. What little time I actually spend in Windows is usually in the file explorer the control panel or the app screen to launch a program. I don't need any of those to look cosmetically pleasing as long as they perform like excepted.

 

[Zaap]

OSX isn't really in this category.

Personally, I think Yosemite looks better than ever. There's actually more.transparency than previous versions... menus, windows and preview panes have just the right amount of transparency without being distracting. Overall look is more polished and refined than previous versions.(Heh I'm at a loss for what exactly is "lighting up like a christmas tree" in OSX though.)

I don't mind Windows 8.1 either once all the toddlerfied Metro crap has been kicked to the backseat. Its easy enough to restore enough of the Areo look with a theme if that's your cup of tea.

 

[pauldun170]

At first, when they were just released, maybe.
But, take a Vista era computer and put Win7 or 8/8.1 on it and they will be slower. And you cant tell me now that they have all been around for a few years that they are not bloated beyond control. My Win7 machine w/Office 2013 is at about 45GB fully updated, and no other apps except for K-Lite Codec Codec pack. In contrast my Debian Jessie (testing) laptop is at 9.9GB fully updated with LibreOffice and many more apps.

Nope
HP dv9207US (Original Core Duo with T2250 and 7600go vid card+ 2gb ram)

Dell Latitude D630 (Core2Duo T7250 something + intel graphics +3gb ram)

Both came with Vista.
Both were later upgraded with Windows 7.
Both worked better under Windows 7.

Both have had various ports of Fedora and Ubuntu over the years, the latest 14.01 and Fedora 18. Out of the box performance was horrendous and the user experience sucked.
The 9207 was finally retired 2 weeks ago because of a hardware issue, other wise it performed best under Windows 7 vs Vista, Fedora and Ubuntu.
The D630 also flew using Windows 7 with excellent battery life compared to Vista\Fedora\Ubuntu.

I even had a 2.8 P4 that ran Windows 7 and was usable for Office\Web\stuff.

I have not experienced one scenario where Windows 7 was slower than Vista. So far I see performance increase of Windows 8.1 over Windows 7 on equal hardware.
Since Windows 7 and Vista are desktop OS's I don't care about the "foot print" of the OS on the hard drive since storage is cheap. I care about usability and responsiveness.

 

[Zaap]

I used to eradicate Vista off laptops and computers left and right. First back to XP then to Windows 7 when it came out. The same hardware was always faster with either OS over Vista and virtually everyone I upgraded was thankful.

There's since been an attempt at history revision over Vista but itwas a dog.