Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Dec 2012 19:50 UTC
Windows The HTC HD2 is probably one of the most enduring mobile phones out there. While it originally shipped with Windows Mobile way back in 2009, it has become one of the most hacker-friendly devices out there, and hackers have managed to port virtually everything to the device - various versions of Android, MeeGo, Ubuntu, and Windows Phone have found their way to the HD2. Russian hacker Cotulla, responsible for many of these ports, has just announced the next big port: Windows RT is now running on the HD2.
Thread beginning with comment 546471
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

To expand on the previous comment a bit, the reason the specs call for a 1Ghz CPU and 1GB of RAM are that the minimum OS requirement is Windows 7 - and the minimum requirements for Windows 7 call for a 1Ghz CPU and 1GB of RAM...

Yes, it needs 3GB of disk space, but that is mostly because of the way the installer works (it puts the entire install image on your harddrive - even if you never really install any of the optional components). The "core" parts of all the Office apps probably only take up about 350MB at the most.

The requirements are simply a side-effect of the minimum OS required. They can't state lower requirements than the OS itself calls for...

The only thing special is they chose to require SSE2, which seems reasonable since it is available in all AMD/Intel processors made since 2003. Windows 8 requires SSE2 as well...

Don't want to sound like I'm piling on, I agree completely with you overall point. Its just that Office is a bad example of software bloat - its actually quite lightweight relative to most Office Suites (OpenOffice I'm talking about you).

http://www.hostcult.com/2012/08/libreoffice-36-vs-openoffice34-vs-m...

Edited 2012-12-28 01:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Agree, Office might not have been the best example, just something off the top of my head. In any case, as for the RAM requirements, I think you're way too optimistic there - the measures you gave most probably don't include shared libraries and a host of other resources (OSes like to lie about such things). As for disk resources, I see no reason for them to inflate 8x, even with added functionality - I mean, we're talking nearly a full DVD's worth of data, the equivalent of some 100000 full-PAL JPEG images.

As for OOo/LibreOffice, again, fully agree, that thing needs an intense diet, real bad.

Reply Parent Score: 2

anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

Agree, Office might not have been the best example, just something off the top of my head. In any case, as for the RAM requirements, I think you're way too optimistic there - the measures you gave most probably don't include shared libraries and a host of other resources (OSes like to lie about such things).


It's not so much lying as it is being difficult to give an accurate representation of it. If the same shared library is loaded by multiple apps, it's actually only loaded into memory once and then mapped into each corresponding app's address space (at least the code section ; the data and other modifiable sections are mapped COW). That consequently makes it difficult to accurately assess the true memory usage of a given app, since, if the library is being used by more than one, you can't really lay the blame for that additional memory onto any given app, hence the complex and often confusing numbers one gets as far as memory usage goes.

Reply Parent Score: 3

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

In any case, as for the RAM requirements, I think you're way too optimistic there - the measures you gave most probably don't include shared libraries and a host of other resources (OSes like to lie about such things).


That's true, but again, it's still not the whole story.

There's an MSO.DLL and an MSORES.DLL that collectively take up 210 MB of RAM. But these are loaded once -- even if you load all the Office programs simultaneously.

And even then, it doesn't actually take up 210 MB of physical memory. Remember that Windows NT has a demand-paged virtual memory system. Those files are demand-paged into memory, 4 KB at a time. Until one of the Office programs actually calls a function located on a certain page, then that page is not actually taking up any RAM.

As for disk resources, I see no reason for them to inflate 8x, even with added functionality - I mean, we're talking nearly a full DVD's worth of data, the equivalent of some 100000 full-PAL JPEG images.


The Excel icon now takes 173 KB of disk space. One icon. (At 256x256, 32-bit color, as a high-quality PNG.) Now think about how many other icons there are in Office.

And not just icons. Fonts. The new equation editor. A new ligatures-aware layout engine. New PivotTables. More accurate statistics functions (the old ones are still there, to get bug-for-bug backward compatibility).

One man's bloat is another man's feature. You may not use a given feature, but other people do.

Reply Parent Score: 3