Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Oct 2012 20:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 539218
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It could have been better
by kompak on Sat 20th Oct 2012 06:57
in reply to "It could have been better"
RE: It could have been better
by segedunum on Sat 20th Oct 2012 22:29
in reply to "It could have been better"
Of course 12GB is too much, but it's actually better than other choice: not having a Windows ARM version at all.
Why? No one cares about Windows on ARM. People care about Windows purely because of the installed base of x86 specific applications. Beyond that there isn't much use for it.
That means Microsoft has not actually done much to reduce this clutter, except for porting the code to ARM (which is important by itself).
I'm not convinced they can do much about it. Windows is an interconnected homogeneous system. You take it or leave it.
RE[2]: It could have been better
by j-kidd on Sun 21st Oct 2012 00:41
in reply to "RE: It could have been better"
I'm not convinced they can do much about it. Windows is an interconnected homogeneous system. You take it or leave it.
I just did some testing with Windows Server 2008 R2 yesterday. A normal installation takes 12GB, while a core installation takes 2GB only.
If WinRT didn't have to pull in all the desktop stuffs, I think it would be much smaller.
RE: It could have been better
by MollyC on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 03:22
in reply to "It could have been better"
RE[2]: It could have been better
by segedunum on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 07:59
in reply to "RE: It could have been better"
RE: It could have been better
by bnolsen on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 08:00
in reply to "It could have been better"
RE[2]: It could have been better
by zima on Fri 26th Oct 2012 23:19
in reply to "RE: It could have been better"
Any company in position, with such possibilities, would probably act more or less similar. And anyway, their competition was also simply stupid and/or a worse choice: http://www.osnews.com/thread?522221 (plus, Gang of Nine preferred to deal with MS than yield to IBM)





Member since:
2006-11-19
Of course 12GB is too much, but it's actually better than other choice: not having a Windows ARM version at all.
I've checked my current Windows 7 installation with TreeSize (great utlity btw). I have 64 bit windows, Office 2010 + 2013 Beta + Visual Studio, and a bunch of other things.
This is the breakdown:
28GB Windows
- 8.5G Installer files
- 8GB WinSxS (backwards compatibility)
- 3.6GB System32
- 2GB Assembly (.net native images for v2 and v4 for both 32 and 64 bits)
- 1.2GB temp
- 1.2GB SysWOW64 (32 bits compatibility)
- 1GB Software Distribution
- 1GB Microsoft.Net
- 500MB Fonts
- and the rest totals less than 1GB
10GB System Volume Information (shadow copies and system restore)
1.3GB MSOCache (Office setup files)
I've skipped over program files, and user data
Out of these system files, at least 32GB of ~40GB is redundant and useless stuff (for example I don't need 4 different versions of .Net).
Even if we included Office in this mix (it usually takes ~2GB installation space), we'd still have a total of 10-11GB actual useful non-redundant resources.
That means Microsoft has not actually done much to reduce this clutter, except for porting the code to ARM (which is important by itself).