Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Oct 2012 20:07 UTC
Windows Interesting little tidbit from the Reddit AMA session with Microsoft's Surface team. One Redditor wondered just how much disk space Windows RT takes up - in other words, if you buy the 32GB Surface RT tablet, how much space is left for your stuff? It turns out that while Windows 8 RT is considerably smaller than its Windows 7 x86 predecessor, it's still huge by mobile standards.
Thread beginning with comment 539331
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not quite true
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 21st Oct 2012 05:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Not quite true"
Member since:

That still way more than it should be. I wonder what it actually is there that's taking so horribly much storage space. Even worse when the OS takes a third of all storage on the whole system. Curious.

It is? Come on, this is Windows we're talking about here. It has a longtime reputation of being joked about due to the fact that with every release comes even more bloat and in turn higher system requirements. Clearly that's still the case--either Microsoft is lazy, the chip manufacturers are paying them to keep specs high, or both (I'm betting on both...). I'm not saying that Mac OS X or Linux is any better (well, there are some exceptions in Linux with certain window managers...) , but seriously... the fact that Windows for traditional PCs is a pig is well-known.

I just think it's highly ironic that what Windows 8 is is basically a tablet/cell phone-type OS designed with traditional PC hardware in mind, yet its x86 version requires even *more* memory and hard drive space than Windows 7. With the extreme drop in functionality provided by Metro, I'd expect an equivalent drop in specs... but I guess this is Microsoft we're talking about. The fact that the ARM version is so heavy doesn't surprise me the least bit... it's from the same damn code base. It would be different if it was actually a separate OS like Windows CE was, but it's not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Not quite true
by lucas_maximus on Sun 21st Oct 2012 16:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Not quite true"
lucas_maximus Member since:

Bloat word is banded around yet again.

It is called features. Normally even my basic web code triples in size after putting in all the error, logging and debugging symbols.

I honestly don't believe many people on this website write code or if they do it isn't very robust.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Not quite true
by quackalist on Sun 21st Oct 2012 17:35 in reply to "RE[3]: Not quite true"
quackalist Member since:

I don't write code but bloat is undeniable and if those who do don't find the growth of bloat an issue I despair.

Nevermind applications for the moment, just consider the growth in Windows OS size , if that's down to 'features' what radical new features have we seen from Windows this last decade to account for it. Most everything 'radical' I can recall microsoft has tried to do with the OS has been shelved and we've just had evolutionary iterations, some better than others, of the code base. It is something and one expects a cost in size.....but, how long can this continue?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Not quite true
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 21st Oct 2012 17:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Not quite true"
UltraZelda64 Member since:

I disagree... I would not necessarily call all features bloat. Some things are just completely unnecessary and that's what I refer to as bloat. Of course, what that is varies to everyone, but the reality is Windows tries to do everything for everyone so it's full of tons of crap, whether you want it or not. When something takes up more resources (drive space, processing power, memory) than needed (for unwanted things), I call that bloat.

Prime example: Two completely conflicting graphical user environments designed for totally different types of computers, with the more functional one being purposely made more inconvenient to use to get everyone to switch to the touchscreen-type UI. And if Windows has been getting tons of useful features, then it doesn't seem to have much to show for. Metro sure isn't what I'd call feature-packed.

When I can't run even the 32-bit version of what appears to be a glorified mobile OS/traditional desktop OS hybrid in a virtual machine with less than a gig of RAM and about 16 gigs virtual drive capacity... now that's what I call bloated.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Not quite true
by tylerdurden on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 01:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Not quite true"
tylerdurden Member since:

Oh, you write "web code" and think "debugging symbols" should be part of a final public release. That's cute... you are totally qualified to trash other people's coding abilities.

Edited 2012-10-22 02:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2