Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 17:53 UTC
Windows One of the main problems with Windows Vista (and earlier versions) is that Windows consumes quite a lot of diskspace, with few means to trim down the installation. To make matters worse, Windows tends to accumulate a lot of megabytes and even gigabytes of space during its lifetime, leaving users at a loss as to how to reclaim this lost space. In a post on the Engineering 7 weblog, Microsoft program manager of the core OS deployment feature team (...) Michael Beck explains what Microsoft is doing in order to reduce the disk footprint of Windows 7.
Thread beginning with comment 338143
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Disk storage & memory
by Doc Pain on Sun 23rd Nov 2008 20:19 UTC in reply to "Disk storage & memory"
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

In my opinion we need to get back to making applications that run on less memory and utilize less system resources. The average home user does not need to be required to purchase a machine with 4G of ram and a 1T of disk space to use a basic machine...


I really follow this idealistic idea, but I don't think MICROS~1 will, sadly.

Systems as you suggested are very welcome to fields of use where the costs for running the machines are more important than the costs of purchasing them. Of course it's cheap today to buy huge hard drives and tons of RAM, a fast state-of-the-art GPU, mainboard and processor. But now for the power supply and the energy consumption - I think they've grown more expensive than, let's say, a 10 years old typical PC. Energy consumption is usually better on "less performant" systems ("low end stuff"), but NB that performance is not a property of hardware or software alone - it's about the combination of both. Well written software is usable even on "low end stuff", just have a look at the many non-"Windows" operating systems such as BeOS (and its successors), the Linusi or the UNIXes.

The tendency is this: Increase hardware power. Sell software that eats it up completely and cries for more. Sell better hardware. Sell more hungry software... you're getting the idea. That's what industry calls progess - selling all new stuff every few years just in order to keep the users doing the same stuff they did years before.

With today's means, it's relatively easy to build systems as you suggested. But that's not the way MICROS~1 makes profit. You need to buy - you mustn't use free products that offer better performance (and, in conclusion, better usage of the present hardware and furthermore better cost relationships). Whenever a new "Windows" comes out, you can already prepare to buy new hardware. The "old" stuff goes to the waste dump. The environment says "thank you". So instead of creating more efficient software industry just throws mre memory and bigger disks at the customers.

My usual final take:

disk capacity + memory installed
------------------------------------------- = usage speed = const.
OS and software requirements

The "const." conclusion is obvious because that's what happens if you keep increasing numerator and denominator of this quotient.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Disk storage & memory
by sbergman27 on Sun 23rd Nov 2008 20:49 in reply to "RE: Disk storage & memory"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

disk capacity + memory installed
------------------------------------------- = usage speed = const.
OS and software requirements

And functionality seems to increase roughly as the cube root of (disk capacity + memory installed). That's the *real* tragedy.

Edited 2008-11-23 20:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Disk storage & memory
by -ujb- on Mon 24th Nov 2008 10:39 in reply to "RE: Disk storage & memory"
-ujb- Member since:
2005-10-21


Energy consumption is usually better on "less performant" systems ("low end stuff"), but NB that performance is not a property of hardware or software alone - it's about the combination of both. Well written software is usable even on "low end stuff", just have a look at the many non-"Windows" operating systems such as BeOS (and its successors), the Linusi or the UNIXes.


Indeed, my Linux powered 1.6GHz Atom Netbook (Eee 900A) feels much more sluggish than my L2 cache less 400MHz PPC (MPC5200) driven multimedia frame (a design study based on Efika 5200B) powered by MorphOS 2.x.

Reply Parent Score: 1