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 546548
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Obviously, I wasn't giving an exhaustive list of where every single MB went on an Office install. I was just pointing out some of the features that I use that weren't present in Office 2003. In other words, I'm not getting nothing for my gigabytes, as you seem to think.

I have written my fair share of application software and that is the split I was usually seeing. 1/10th code, 9/10ths resources. There's one issue though, it's easy to inflate the resources - simply save your app icon at higher res and you're done. It's much harder to inflate the code part.

That having been said, you seem to be unaware that the templates and clip art have been mostly moved online in Office 2013. Only the most commonly-used templates have been left in the default install. (And it's the non-core Office applications -- Publisher and Access -- that are the biggest offenders. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint have really been slimmed down.)

How much space do these core 3 apps take up? I'm not an Office user, I've only got Microsoft's own claims online about the sysreq's to go on about.

My Office folder is 1.7 GB. 1.0 GB is DLLs, 192 MB is EXEs, 112 MB is fonts. A whopping 2.5 MB consists of those "uncompressed BMPs" that you're so worried about. Animations and music and videos? I can't find them. Maybe you can.

What. The. Fuck. 1.2GB of executable code? In Office alone? What the hell is Microsoft bundling in that thing? Just for reference, all of the executable code, including the kernel, device drivers and application software on my desktop Ubuntu system clocks in at around 1.2GB. Just for comparison, the 3.2 Linux kernel contains around 15 million lines of code (not all of it compiled, but a good deal) and compiled on x86 comes to around 120MB, so unless Office contains 5-10x that much code, there's something else at work here. It is just my suspicion that these EXEs and DLLs are packed full of auxiliary resources that you didn't estimate, or there's tons of static linking going on (or both).

As for memory consumption, I don't know why you're going on about garbage collectors for. The Office programs are unmanaged, and written in a combination of C++, C, and (a little bit of) assembly.

Do you have access to the source code? If not, how can you say that? Also, merely being written in C/C++ does not mean you don't utilize garbage collectors. A GC can be an implict part of the language (Java, C#, etc.), or one can use it explicitly (Boehm GC, OpenStep's refcount GC, GObject, etc.).

You seem to be intent on being upset about something, for whatever reason.

As I seem to have to endlessly elaborate, I was talking about in my original post about the "meh just get more powerful hardware" mentality. I don't care two shits about how exactly Office is implemented, what I'm talking about is the fact that a program of such a type shouldn't have the system requirements it does (I already agreed with galvanash earlier that Office's sysreq's are most likely like that just to reflect the sysreq's of the OS around it). We've had sophisticated desktop software 20 years ago which ran on 1/100th of the resource footprint. I used to run an OPENSTEP 4.2 for Mach on a 200MHz CPU with 64MB of RAM - a full Unix-like OS with a Microkernel (Mach), device drivers written in "managed" Objective-C and application software talking to the display server using an interpreted language (Display PostScript), rendering TrueType fonts and all that jazz. Nothing has changed fundamentally.

Instead of throwing random stuff against the wall to see what will stick, perhaps it's better to first look into it. Maybe you'll discover that the situation is not as bad in reality as you seem to think it is.

Actually, given the above DLL+EXE size measurement, you confirm that it is much, much worse.

Reply Parent Score: 3

tanzam75 Member since:

As I seem to have to endlessly elaborate, I was talking about in my original post about the "meh just get more powerful hardware" mentality.

But you don't need to get more powerful hardware. A $200 netbook will run Office 2013 just fine.

In the 1990s, we actually did need to buy new systems just to run the latest software. Now, we don't. To insist that developers spend their time making their code as small as possible is a waste, when they could instead spend that time on performance optimization, or battery efficiency, or -- heaven forbid -- a new feature that greatly improves the software's capabilities.

Do I care that Chrome is ten times bigger than Netscape Communicator 4.0, which was considered to be very bloated? No! I can do much more in Chrome. The extra 200 MB is well worth it to me.

What's in Office 2013 that takes up so much space? I'm not going to list every feature, but the largest single feature appears to be PowerPivot (183 MB). It's essentially a full OLAP database engine, bundled with Excel. Is it bloat? It is if you don't use it! After all, Excel is a spreadsheet, not a database.

But the thing is, Excel is often used as a database. Or, it's used to analyze data that came out of a database. To someone trying to analyze hundreds of thousands of rows of data in Excel, the feature is invaluable.

"Bloat" just means "all the features that I don't use." As I said previously, one man's bloat is another man's feature. One don't have to be able to list every single feature and account for every single MB to realize that.

Reply Parent Score: 3