Why does Vista/7 take so much Space?

[JackMDS]

OS' are designed to some how be flexible enough to provide service to Hundreds of millions individual business science and more.

To help Knowledgeable folks, and the Ignorant. Old and young, different genders, and cultures.

It is amusing how enthusiasts who usually use their computer for fun, think that the whole world is revolving around their own personal little needs.

Or to put the spirit of this thread in one sentence : "Hey man I do only X, so why the rest of the "cr*p is Needed".

 

[Nothinman]

Or to put it in one sentence: "Hey man I do only X, so why the rest of the "cr*p is Needed".

Which is a valid question and I think that Windows should be more modular so that I can remove all of the crap that I don't need. But it's not, I only use it for work and all of my personal machines are Linux so I don't worry about it that much. But there are still times when the extra crap gets on my nerves.

 

[Hacp]

You said that all you need is WAN and LAN drivers to connect to the Internet and download the rest. Originally you said nothing of driver disks which implies that you'd need to get on the Internet to download everything else. And newer doesn't automatically mean better. In fact, IME with closed source software, the opposite is usually true. I never update drivers in Windows unless I'm trying to fix a specific problem because they usually just end up causing more problems.

Huh? The only reason you'd download from the internet is because it is simpler. Going to dell.com and auto-downloading everything is way simpler than digging through your basement for that dell laptop box.

Also, you missed my whole point. If you have nothing else and your only disk is the windows disk, the only essential driver you need is the wireless/lan drivers. With the internet, you can download and install all the drivers yourself.

 

[EarthwormJim]

An extra gb taken is an extra gb scanned with antivirus.

Which doesn't take very long to scan, even on my netbook...

Do you actually wait on your virus scans? Run them at night or at idle periods like the rest of the planet.

The drivers are really just the tip of the iceberg in disk usage. The main source of space that Windows takes up is the redundancy of .components. If you look at your winsxs folder, it's probably huge (it uses symbolic links so it's not necessarily huge itself). This helps avoid .dll hell as was link twice in this thread (once by me). New versions of components in Windows are saved right next to old versions of the same component.

tzdk posted this very nice link: http://blogs.technet.com/askcore/ar...and-windows-vista-and-why-is-it-so-large.aspx

 

[Nothinman]

Huh? The only reason you'd download from the internet is because it is simpler. Going to dell.com and auto-downloading everything is way simpler than digging through your basement for that dell laptop box.

And even simpler than that is having as many drivers as possible bundled with the OS, which is what MS does currently and you said was stupid.

Also, you missed my whole point. If you have nothing else and your only disk is the windows disk, the only essential driver you need is the wireless/lan drivers. With the internet, you can download and install all the drivers yourself.

All of that's true, but it's no reason for MS not to include storage, video and sound drivers on the install disc as well. One of my biggest complaints about Windows is the fact that not all of my hardware works out of the box like it does in Linux.

 

[Gamingphreek]

The level of ignorance in this thread seriously hurts my brain.

Are you honestly asking why a 7 year old OS takes up as much space as a brand new OS? HONESTLY??

Lets go through a very brief overview of some features:
1. Vector rendering fonts require libraries. Would you rather go back to the ol' bitmap fonts?
2. Security features. Would you rather go back to running everything as Admin where, if someone can get access to one simple program they have access to the machine?
3. Installation - Why even XP included the DOS portion of setup is beyond me. Dumbest. Idea. Ever. Not to mention requiring a floppy drive to support any RAID/AHCI drivers is ridiculous. At any rate the graphics and GUI associated with this cost space.
4. DWM (Desktop Window Manager) - Sure XP works so does DOS, why don't we go back to that. Who needs all these fancy graphics and stuff.

This list could go on for decades of reasons why... I'm done.

-Kevin

 

[HeXen]

Which is a valid question and I think that Windows should be more modular so that I can remove all of the crap that I don't need. But it's not, I only use it for work and all of my personal machines are Linux so I don't worry about it that much. But there are still times when the extra crap gets on my nerves.

Allot of it is integrated with each other, maybe partly for ease of 3rd party developers. Remove one unneeded file,function or component and can break another or break a 3rd party program. Most who use Vlite, don't typically keep it the same for very long, users need changes. I used Nlite and Vlite since its beta stages and its really just not very effective for long term usage.
Nothing worse than trying to run a new game or application, security..etc and see error: xx.dll or missing xx.exe service cannot be found

W7 is pretty efficient, especially considering its legacy compatability, out of box its amazing how good it runs on Atom cpu based Netbooks. The extra crap does nothing but sit there till some oddball program expects specific default files to be there, if not it crashes or malfunctions cause it doesnt know what else to do.

 

[Hacp]

All of that's true, but it's no reason for MS not to include storage, video and sound drivers on the install disc as well. One of my biggest complaints about Windows is the fact that not all of my hardware works out of the box like it does in Linux.

No reason not to include it in the install disk, but why must they include it in with the install?

 

[Hacp]

The level of ignorance in this thread seriously hurts my brain.

Are you honestly asking why a 7 year old OS takes up as much space as a brand new OS? HONESTLY??

Lets go through a very brief overview of some features:
1. Vector rendering fonts require libraries. Would you rather go back to the ol' bitmap fonts?
2. Security features. Would you rather go back to running everything as Admin where, if someone can get access to one simple program they have access to the machine?
3. Installation - Why even XP included the DOS portion of setup is beyond me. Dumbest. Idea. Ever. Not to mention requiring a floppy drive to support any RAID/AHCI drivers is ridiculous. At any rate the graphics and GUI associated with this cost space.
4. DWM (Desktop Window Manager) - Sure XP works so does DOS, why don't we go back to that. Who needs all these fancy graphics and stuff.

This list could go on for decades of reasons why... I'm done.

-Kevin

1) Whats wrong with bitmap fonts? They are small and efficient.
2)Why cant you set up non-admin accounts?
3) My XP install disk provided by dell has AHCI drivers preloaded. Just slipstream them in.
4) You can keep the fancy graphics and still shrink the install. I think people have managed to get the install down to ~4.5gb with aero and everything else functional.

 

[lxskllr]

4) You can keep the fancy graphics and still shrink the install. I think people have managed to get the install down to ~4.5gb with aero and everything else functional.

Because they customize it for THEIR needs. Windows has to be everything, to everyone. Maybe it could be argued that they should include a mechanism for removing stuff, but most people don't care. Also, it would be a support nightmare if they had to figure out what someone did to their install, and what it takes to fix it.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Another thing that has not really been mentioned is, space is a much bigger issue for people that want to use SSDs. Space on those is very limited. If the OS is taking up 30% of it, then that's quite a big chunk.

 

[Bushwicktrini]

Shouldn't your question really be Why can't I as a power user get my win 7 install slimmed down. My mom who does nothing on her pc but spades and freecell was able to reintall her os with no hassle just following the instructons that came with her dell and she doesn't care/notice how large the install was/is and would not even begain to know what slipstreaming is nor does she want to. People like her are why win 7 is so large not you op.

 

[EarthwormJim]

to get the install down to ~4.5gb with aero and everything else functional.

I'd love to see the people you mentioned use that same OS install for a couple of years.

I've done vlite and nlite installs of Windows. Invariably down the line I run into some issue because a program I really need is expecting certain files that were removed.

vlite installs are damn near impossible to trouble shoot simply because everything in Windows is deeply connected to each other. Remove one component or part of it, and you have no idea how other seemingly unrelated components will respond.

Your complaints are mainly issues with the fundamental nature of Windows. This will change, they're already working on making Windows components less interdependent on each other with Server (Minwin/Server Core). That will trickle down to desktop releases also.

 

[zerocool84]

Another thing that has not really been mentioned is, space is a much bigger issue for people that want to use SSDs. Space on those is very limited. If the OS is taking up 30% of it, then that's quite a big chunk.

SSD's are NOT for everyone. You should know the risks and how much space you need when buying something like that.

 

[vj8usa]

SSD's are NOT for everyone. You should know the risks and how much space you need when buying something like that.

Exactly. I put a 60GB SSD in my laptop, and with a completely standard installation of 7 (leaving hibernation on and pagefile intact with default size setting), I haven't used more than 20GB total. That's with all my applications already installed, no less. I couldn't care less about 7 using more space than XP; the features/improvements it has over XP are significantly more valuable to me than the space I could've saved.

 

[HeXen]

No reason not to include it in the install disk, but why must they include it in with the install?

For starters its called market share. Most people on the net use IE, this is why its included by default, give a choice and you lose that part of the market. Same goes with all other included components.

To include it on the disk with a user install option, well you just added a complexity to people who do not know much about PC's. Plus it adds more user questions and complaints to support help.

Then also other developers have a harder time cause they write a program but have no clue what parts of windows you don't or do have installed, Many programs use various parts of the included OS to function, provide data, make calls....etc.

 

[JackMDS]

Lucky for us space on the Internet is inexpensive (like space on hard drives).

Otherwise this "Bizarre" thread would be a Big waste of money. - :hmm: -


.

 

[vj8usa]

For starters its called market share.

What does including drivers with the OS have to do with market share? For sure, including IE helps MS gain/hold its footing in the browser market, but including drivers is pretty much entirely to make things more convenient for the user.

 

[Hacp]

For starters its called market share. Most people on the net use IE, this is why its included by default, give a choice and you lose that part of the market. Same goes with all other included components.

To include it on the disk with a user install option, well you just added a complexity to people who do not know much about PC's. Plus it adds more user questions and complaints to support help.

Then also other developers have a harder time cause they write a program but have no clue what parts of windows you don't or do have installed, Many programs use various parts of the included OS to function, provide data, make calls....etc.

Custom Drivers will already be installed by the PC maker for people who have no clue about windows.

 

[Paperlantern]

This thread is entertaining. Another person that thinks everything is free. Win7 is Head and shoulders over XP AND vista as an OS and he thinks it should only be a couple hundred meg more than a full XP install. Hahahahaha... hahahahaaa.. haha. ha. It is to laugh.

If you hate it so much quit arguing here and just use XP. Your problem solved.

 

[Raduque]

With disk space being cheaper it's less of an issue though but what IS an issue is the rediculous amount of ram and cpu power new OSes always take compared to previous ones. Ram is still a very limited resource. You can't just keep adding more ram. Most motherboards only have like 4 slots. You might get lucky to get one with 6. If the OS is eating up 80% of your ram then there's not much left for other apps.

Maybe this is the case with Windows XP, but since Vista, Windows' memory manager has become far more efficient. Vista/7 caches everything it thinks you might need - but it will drop all of that on the floor the instant an app or game requests more ram than is currently free. An old OS like XP was very reluctant to give that ram up.

And what is something that windows 7 has, that xp does not have? (serious question). I'm talking a major feature here, something that would normally take lot of space.

Stability. And for that stability, I would trade a hundred gigabytes. I consider it a bargain at the 23.5gb that I paid for it.

 

[HeXen]

What does including drivers with the OS have to do with market share?

nothing at all

For sure, including IE helps MS gain/hold its footing in the browser market

so you agree with what i was talking about...good

 

[Nothinman]

Allot of it is integrated with each other, maybe partly for ease of 3rd party developers. Remove one unneeded file,function or component and can break another or break a 3rd party program. Most who use Vlite, don't typically keep it the same for very long, users need changes. I used Nlite and Vlite since its beta stages and its really just not very effective for long term usage.
Nothing worse than trying to run a new game or application, security..etc and see error: xx.dll or missing xx.exe service cannot be found

Which is just a good reason for proper package management, not simply making it more difficult to remove those files.

For starters its called market share. Most people on the net use IE, this is why its included by default, give a choice and you lose that part of the market. Same goes with all other included components.

If their product was better they wouldn't lose market share because people would choose it.

Then also other developers have a harder time cause they write a program but have no clue what parts of windows you don't or do have installed, Many programs use various parts of the included OS to function, provide data, make calls....etc.

Again, proper package management. As a developer you should know what your program depends on so it shouldn't be difficult to say "Requires: XXX".

 

[sswingle]

Another Gripe I have is that they managed to add 7gb to the install but didn't put in any really useful features. Wheres the automatic spell checker? What about a graphing calculator? Improved MS Paint? Screen/voice recording software? More full featured games? They always emphasize features but all they have are useless features like GUI improvements; nothing that improves the user experience.

They added a TON of new features to the calculator. MS Paint is also improved.

 

[HeXen]

If their product was better they wouldn't lose market share because people would choose it.

obviously so...in a perfect world. However in reality, MS doesnt make great software apps, so they chose to force it on us...not a damn thing anyone can do except try to remove them, but that tends to cause more problems than it solves int he long run.