Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Feb 2013 23:58 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 551910
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not only tablet or phone OSes are smaller, but also full blown desktop OS can be much, much smaller. Yes, of course I am speaking about Linux. 2 GB will give you a nice systems with all the bells & whistles plus a great selection of apps.
You can go even smaller than that. I've had a fully functional, GUI driven modern desktop OS via Tiny Core Linux that was less than 500MB. And that was with a ton of third party apps that didn't ship with the original, internet-capable GUI driven 10MB live image.
The thing is, Windows and Mac OSes have grown larger and larger over the years yet the return via new features isn't matching it. In my experience, OS X has included a lot of great features with each release, especially compared to Windows, but still not nearly enough to warrant the wasted drive space.
No, Apple and Microsoft are trying too hard to shoehorn a full desktop OS experience onto limited devices that don't really need it. Where is the MacBook Air with a touchscreen running iOS? Why not just leave the Surface Pro with RT and slim that OS down some? That's what I'd like to see.




Member since:
2012-01-13
ZDNet writes: "Of course, neither device can compare to a tablet or phone OS in terms of efficiency. Tablet operating systems are designed to be small, and they sacrifice all sorts of capabilities that you expect in a full-strength PC. But if you're going to complain about operating systems using too much of the available storage, you'd better make sure your letter to Redmond is cc'ed to Cupertino."
This is wrong. Not only tablet or phone OSes are smaller, but also full blown desktop OS can be much, much smaller. Yes, of course I am speaking about Linux. 2 GB will give you a nice systems with all the bells & whistles plus a great selection of apps.
And about the dishonesty, the food industry has solved this many centuries ago, by introducing the concepts Gross and Net. If I buy a pack of flour, sugar, pasta or whatever, I am not interested in the gross weight; I want to know how much USABLE stuff I get. It's called the NET WEIGHT.
Edited 2013-02-08 12:05 UTC