Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 17:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 338200
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Linux distros are still small
by google_ninja on Mon 24th Nov 2008 21:26
in reply to "RE[6]: Linux distros are still small"
RE[8]: Linux distros are still small
by sbergman27 on Mon 24th Nov 2008 21:53
in reply to "RE[7]: Linux distros are still small"
When you talk about vista, you are talking home premium/ultimate/business which have a 40gig requirement.
Oy vey! How many DVDs does that come on? Or perhaps it would be more interesting to consider "CD equivalents" of 700MB.
I remember, back in the day, we had a manufacturing accounting package that came in on over 50 5-1/4" floppies. Installation was somewhat tedious, as you can imagine, and quite frustrating when they ran into bad media. Actually, it was a DOS package so I didn't have to mess with it.
Edited 2008-11-24 21:54 UTC





Member since:
2005-07-24
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