Windows 7 Ultimate (x64) HDD space taken after install?

[essential]

I'm pricing out parts on a new build. I plan on installing Windows 7 Ultimate (x64), and want an SLC SSD. Now, the only reasonably prices SLC SSD are 32GB.

I was wondering, does anyone know after install how much space Windows 7 Ultimate (x64) with updates takes? Trying to figure out if it's worth it, cause after format and 7, if I only have 10GB left for programs, it might not be the best move.

Thanks.

 

[zagood]

Ballpark - 14gb.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Windows Vista / 7 on a small, ~30GB hard drive would make me cringe. Even the 40GB that Intel / Kingston have out aren't my cup of tea.

Between the OS and applications (Office 2007, Photoshop, anti virus, and a small handfull of others) I have 24.9 GB used of 74.4 GB on the X-25M G2 80GB. That gives me some growing room as other programs need to be installed, as well as room for the page file, etc.

If the OS is the ONLY thing you're going to put on the drive, ~30GB should be ok. You won't notice the awesome speed benefits of having commonly used applications on your SSD, though.

 

[essential]

Windows Vista / 7 on a small, ~30GB hard drive would make me cringe. Even the 40GB that Intel / Kingston have out aren't my cup of tea.

Between the OS and applications (Office 2007, Photoshop, anti virus, and a small handfull of others) I have 24.9 GB used of 74.4 GB on the X-25M G2 80GB. That gives me some growing room as other programs need to be installed, as well as room for the page file, etc.

If the OS is the ONLY thing you're going to put on the drive, ~30GB should be ok. You won't notice the awesome speed benefits of having commonly used applications on your SSD, though.

I'd like to use applications off it as well, not just OS. I have a 74GB Raptor now, and with Windows XP and apps, I'm only using 24GB.

However, I know 7 is a much larger install and programs are just getting bigger, so I guess 32GB will be tight. The price jump between a 32GB SLC and the larger models is so great, so I guess I have to think about it, cause I doubt the larger SLC's will come down in price for a couple years.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Phynaz]

Why the SLC requirement?

You know the Intel MLC drives are faster than other SLC drives, right?

 

[JackMDS]

I'd like to use applications off it as well, not just OS. I have a 74GB Raptor now, and with Windows XP and apps, I'm only using 24GB.

Every thing the same but Win 7 instead of XP you have to add about 10MB.

So, 24 +10 = 34GB.

You have to get rid of 6 GB Application/Files to expect reasonable working condition.

AFAIC, the price/performance the SSDs contribute to a workstations deem it currently to be a social movement (Hey Dud I am Cool, I run SSD :hmm, and Not worth while technological decision.

.

 

[essential]

Why the SLC requirement?

You know the Intel MLC drives are faster than other SLC drives, right?

I didn't know that, but I thought, in general, SLCs were faster, higher throughput, and more reliable/less to no error correction needed?

I also thought SSDs in general fuctioned just as fast full as they do empty (unlike HDDs) which was also one of the benefits. I don't mind a small SSD, as long as it's big enough, it just looks like 32GB is too small if Windows 7 will take about half of that. I will have to read more about MLC, maybe it's come a long way since I last read in detail about the subject.