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 338196
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

You are partially correct..

Not to be contrary. But I said:

"""
Even the x86_64 version of Ubuntu still fits on, and can run from, a single CD. That's the full version and not some cut down version.
"""

That is all *completely* correct and not just partially correct.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Piranha Member since:
2008-06-24

Except when you 'install' on a hard drive, it bloats out. So when talking about OS' bloatness (which is what this topic is about), you're comparing compressed to non-compressed.

Sure, it runs, but you can also enable compression on NTFS partitions. However, nobody wants to do this since it usually makes the system sluggish. It's true that 'some' compressions make reads/writes faster (at the expense of CPU cycles), but usually isn't the best compression technique out there.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Except when you 'install' on a hard drive, it bloats out.


Andrew,

Of course the installed image is larger than the compressed installation image; Surely any OSNews reader should recognize that implicitly without anyone having to jump in to share that startling "insight".

Anyway, IIRC, the installed OS is about 1.5GB. Not bad at all by 2008 standards. By comparison, I believe Vista requires about "a 20GB disk with at least 15GB available free space". About a 10 fold difference. Even with NTFS compression, you're never going to get that within a factor of 5 of Ubuntu's installation size. Even Windows advocates in this thread have admitted that you'd never squeeze it onto an 8GB SSD.

Edit: And why did I even bother to type all this out, anyway?

Edited 2008-11-24 21:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2