|
|
Our Hot Pick: Rising Antivirus 2006 - Certified by TUV & Checkmark! Get 10% discount by entering this coupon code: ONDISCOUNT10
|
|
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
Ah, but see here!
http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?id=7284&catid=1
The capacity of hard drives will be about 5 TB in two years.
100 GB will be trivial!
Tom Lake
|
|
so I guess the next version of windows will be available on blue ray or hdd
disks that can hold 20-25 gb of infortmation
so that when its unpacked and installed it would inflate to 100gb.
Or could could get a 5 dvd install set.
Please insert next disk to continue.... :-)
Now lets think a little about ram
win95=8mb, win98=16, winMe=32, winXP= 128, winVista= 512, Win Vienna? It
seems that it will need
2GB of ram just for itself!!! The rise is non linear, rather
logarythmic.....
Of course there will be only a 64 bit version it seems... since a 32 bit OS
cannot handle more than 4 gb.
With the OS taking up half of that.. you will have only 2 free (in reality
it its less, more like 1 gb left)
(yeah I know servers [ at ] 32 bit can handle many chunks of 4 gb)
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
|
|
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM and
Z/OS
systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context.
As it stand, without comparison to alternatives, your graphs are
meaningless.
|
|
yes.... of course.. this has been the case.. in fact the disk space capacity
has grown faster than the
needs of the OS
But still..... 100 gb for windows? lol
"Tom Lake" <tlake[ at ]twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eKXTRBQlHHA.2552[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
|
|
Why should I post about other OS? I am comparing various versions of
windows...
The data of how much disk space is needed for each version of windows is
available,
why don't you look and see? Where are the lies?
Anyway this graph is not a precise one.. its a fuzzy estimate, just to see
trends...
No one knows what will happen in the future... or even if there will be
another version of windows
for that matter!
"Julian" <Julianlzb87[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5C0ABCF4-CFDC-4A92-A9A8-B86AB3DA028B[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message > news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to >> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed >> "vienna" >> >> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>> >> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) > > Lies, damned lies, and statistics > > Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM and > Z/OS > systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context. > > As it stand, without comparison to alternatives, your graphs are > meaningless.
|
|
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
news:e9GPLLQlHHA.5024[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Why should I post about other OS? I am comparing various versions of
> windows...
> The data of how much disk space is needed for each version of windows is
> available,
> why don't you look and see? Where are the lies?
Oh I get it....
You are demonstrating that Windows is becoming progressively
less expensive in terms of storage as it growth isn't keeping up
with the growth of disk space you get for a dollar.
|
|
The WINNT folder in a Win 2000 installation takes up between 1.5 and
1.75gb.. also, it was a very lean OS aimed at business.. no frills
XP was twice as large again, but contained more features and a very
different look.. it also proved to be more stable in the long run, although
some diehards preferred to stay with what they knew..
Vista isn't quite twice as much as XP, but has more features, much revised
code..
Vienna? Who knows for sure? But I doubt it will be even close to 100gb..
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
--
Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
|
|
you need around 10 gb for vista... you need around 2gb for xp
im talking about the OS...
thats 5 times more space
Also you are talking about win2k with service packs or the first vanilla
version?
The first one needed less that what you say I believe.
"Mike Hall MVP" <mikehall[ at ]mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OIxvTRQlHHA.588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > The WINNT folder in a Win 2000 installation takes up between 1.5 and > 1.75gb.. also, it was a very lean OS aimed at business.. no frills > > XP was twice as large again, but contained more features and a very > different look.. it also proved to be more stable in the long run, > although some diehards preferred to stay with what they knew.. > > Vista isn't quite twice as much as XP, but has more features, much revised > code.. > > Vienna? Who knows for sure? But I doubt it will be even close to 100gb.. > > > "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message > news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to >> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed >> "vienna" >> >> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>> >> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) >> >> > > -- > > > Mike Hall > MS MVP Windows Shell/User > http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/> > >
|
|
"Julian" <Julianlzb87[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in
news:3AB9E62C-CE5C-4864-9D93-5A7D94DE02BE[ at ]microsoft.com:
[Quoted Text] > "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
> news:e9GPLLQlHHA.5024[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Why should I post about other OS? I am comparing various versions of
>> windows...
>> The data of how much disk space is needed for each version of windows
>> is available,
>> why don't you look and see? Where are the lies?
>
> Oh I get it....
>
> You are demonstrating that Windows is becoming progressively
> less expensive in terms of storage as it growth isn't keeping up
> with the growth of disk space you get for a dollar.
I see that as a valid way to look at it.
|
|
you can draw various conclusions from this...
indeed disk space is getting cheaper and disks are getting bigger and
bigger..
im not saying that they are not... Im just taking a peek into the future...
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t[ at ]a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns992EE876BB7B3thisnthatadelphianet[ at ]216.196.97.142...
[Quoted Text] > "Julian" <Julianlzb87[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in
> news:3AB9E62C-CE5C-4864-9D93-5A7D94DE02BE[ at ]microsoft.com:
>
>> "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
>> news:e9GPLLQlHHA.5024[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Why should I post about other OS? I am comparing various versions of
>>> windows...
>>> The data of how much disk space is needed for each version of windows
>>> is available,
>>> why don't you look and see? Where are the lies?
>>
>> Oh I get it....
>>
>> You are demonstrating that Windows is becoming progressively
>> less expensive in terms of storage as it growth isn't keeping up
>> with the growth of disk space you get for a dollar.
>
> I see that as a valid way to look at it.
>
|
|
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
news:eV$RGGQlHHA.1216[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > yes.... of course.. this has been the case.. in fact the disk space
> capacity has grown faster than the
> needs of the OS
>
> But still..... 100 gb for windows? lol
Just think of the improvements in Solitaire! 8^)
Tom Lake
|
|
yeah 3d people in virtual worlds passing out the cards... the cards will be
3 dimensional cubes with a different card on each side..as a player you will
have various weapons to defend yourselfs from monsters that will try to
steal your deck of cards.
it might even have a "strip solitaire" with a secret code that only adults
would be able to access...
Im sure that last feature would boost windows sales :-)
"Tom Lake" <tlake[ at ]twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ekgGi2QlHHA.4644[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
> news:eV$RGGQlHHA.1216[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> yes.... of course.. this has been the case.. in fact the disk space
>> capacity has grown faster than the
>> needs of the OS
>>
>> But still..... 100 gb for windows? lol
>
> Just think of the improvements in Solitaire! 8^)
>
> Tom Lake
>
|
|
"Tiberius" wrote in message
news:%23f7kk8QlHHA.5084[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > it might even have a "strip solitaire" with a secret code that only
> adults would be able to access...
>
> Im sure that last feature would boost windows sales :-)
With all the crap on Usenet, I doubt a deck of nudie cards would have
much appeal to the adults that actually have a job to pay for the new
hardware and OS. Might tantalize the teens but then they're not the
ones with the money.
|
|
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
Linear extrapolation over a single-point change on a non-linear chart.
Uh huh.
|
|
Julian wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message > news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to >> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed >> "vienna" >> >> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>> >> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) > > Lies, damned lies, and statistics > > Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM and > Z/OS > systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context. >
interested, minimum system requirements for Ubuntu 6.06 LTS ...
Desktop ... 3GB (remember this comes with much software besides just the
o/s: Open Office, Games, FireFox, Evolution Mail, Themes, Gaim, Gimp, etc.
etc.)
Server ... 500MB
Love and Kisses,
Doris
--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2
Title Says It All ... http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl
|
|
Tiberius
A working Win 2000 c/w Service pack 4 uses up 1.5-1.75gb..
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
news:OAG7kbQlHHA.4188[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > you need around 10 gb for vista... you need around 2gb for xp > > im talking about the OS... > > thats 5 times more space > > Also you are talking about win2k with service packs or the first vanilla > version? > > The first one needed less that what you say I believe. > > > "Mike Hall MVP" <mikehall[ at ]mvps.org> wrote in message > news:OIxvTRQlHHA.588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> The WINNT folder in a Win 2000 installation takes up between 1.5 and >> 1.75gb.. also, it was a very lean OS aimed at business.. no frills >> >> XP was twice as large again, but contained more features and a very >> different look.. it also proved to be more stable in the long run, >> although some diehards preferred to stay with what they knew.. >> >> Vista isn't quite twice as much as XP, but has more features, much >> revised code.. >> >> Vienna? Who knows for sure? But I doubt it will be even close to 100gb.. >> >> >> "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message >> news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to >>> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed >>> "vienna" >>> >>> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>>> >>> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> Mike Hall >> MS MVP Windows Shell/User >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/>> >> >> > >
--
Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
|
|
Julian wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message > news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to >> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed >> "vienna" >> >> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>> >> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) > > Lies, damned lies, and statistics > > Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM > and Z/OS > systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context. > > As it stand, without comparison to alternatives, your graphs are > meaningless.
Ubuntu runs just fine on my AMD K7 at 800 Mhz with 256MB of PC-133 RAM.
XP runs on it like molasses runs in a Vermont winter. Vista doesn't have
a chance, even the stripped down Basic version.
Alias
|
|
And what is it that you want to prove to us ?
Or do you want to call for an immediate stop of technology improvement and
developpement ?
If that is your concern, you should be using DOS, ain't you ?
"Tiberius" wrote:
[Quoted Text]
|
|
Geo wrote:
[Quoted Text] > And what is it that you want to prove to us ?
>
> Or do you want to call for an immediate stop of technology improvement and
> developpement ?
Vista is not a development or an improvement.
> If that is your concern, you should be using DOS, ain't you ?
No, he should be using Linux.
Alias
>
> "Tiberius" wrote:
>
>> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to year
>> 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed "vienna"
>>
>> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg
>>
>> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)
>>
>>
>>
|
|
"Tiberius" wrote ...
[Quoted Text] > Im just taking a peek into the future...
> -
That's not what I see in my crystal ball...
Kristle Bawl :)
|
|
First of all we are not talking about win2k with service packs... since the
date I have on the graph
is 2000, not the date the service packs came out.
I am correct and you are wrong of course
http://web.archive.org/web/20040622164511/www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/default.asp
You need 650 MB free space as stated by the MS site itself!
windows Me also needed 600 Mb...
you dont know your stuff MVP.. but Im not surprised....
"Mike Hall MVP" <mikehall[ at ]mvps.org> wrote in message
news:epxi1yTlHHA.4960[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Tiberius > > A working Win 2000 c/w Service pack 4 uses up 1.5-1.75gb.. > > > "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message > news:OAG7kbQlHHA.4188[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> you need around 10 gb for vista... you need around 2gb for xp >> >> im talking about the OS... >> >> thats 5 times more space >> >> Also you are talking about win2k with service packs or the first vanilla >> version? >> >> The first one needed less that what you say I believe. >> >> >> "Mike Hall MVP" <mikehall[ at ]mvps.org> wrote in message >> news:OIxvTRQlHHA.588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> The WINNT folder in a Win 2000 installation takes up between 1.5 and >>> 1.75gb.. also, it was a very lean OS aimed at business.. no frills >>> >>> XP was twice as large again, but contained more features and a very >>> different look.. it also proved to be more stable in the long run, >>> although some diehards preferred to stay with what they knew.. >>> >>> Vista isn't quite twice as much as XP, but has more features, much >>> revised code.. >>> >>> Vienna? Who knows for sure? But I doubt it will be even close to 100gb.. >>> >>> >>> "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message >>> news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to >>>> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed >>>> "vienna" >>>> >>>> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>>>> >>>> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Mike Hall >>> MS MVP Windows Shell/User >>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > > > Mike Hall > MS MVP Windows Shell/User > http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/> > >
|
|
Per Tiberius:
[Quoted Text] >yes.... of course.. this has been the case.. in fact the disk space capacity
>has grown faster than the
>needs of the OS
>
>But still..... 100 gb for windows? lol
"Intel givith.
Microsoft taketh away."
--
PeteCresswell
|
|
good one! :-)
"(PeteCresswell)" <x[ at ]y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:8ude43hd1scqhok7tnocsb7cotutmefrl3[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > Per Tiberius:
>>yes.... of course.. this has been the case.. in fact the disk space
>>capacity
>>has grown faster than the
>>needs of the OS
>>
>>But still..... 100 gb for windows? lol
>
>
> "Intel givith.
> Microsoft taketh away."
> --
> PeteCresswell
|
|
"Julian" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message > news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to > > year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed > > "vienna" > > > > http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg> > > > Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) > > Lies, damned lies, and statistics > > Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM and > Z/OS > systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context. > > As it stand, without comparison to alternatives, your graphs are > meaningless.
The fact that he made them with his " possible projections" makes them useless
I can make one that says the new self compressing OS's will only need 1
meg and it's just as meaningful.
>
|
|
Even thought it is a futile execise I can see where Tiberius is coming from
and as people say "who knows what the future holds"
But then again I have this De Lorien and when it gets up to 88 mph you do
see some serious s..t lolol
"Alias" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Geo wrote: > > And what is it that you want to prove to us ? > > > > Or do you want to call for an immediate stop of technology improvement and > > developpement ? > > Vista is not a development or an improvement. > > > If that is your concern, you should be using DOS, ain't you ? > > No, he should be using Linux. > > Alias > > > > "Tiberius" wrote: > > > >> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to year > >> 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed "vienna" > >> > >> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg> >> > >> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) > >> > >> > >> > |
|
Tiberius wrote:
[Quoted Text]
I have only 1 criticism of your graph. Vista needs more than 10 GB HDD
space unless you are knowledgeable and turn off a bunch of stuff!
Otherwise, great graph! :)
--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Very simple Nothing I like better than insulting Linsux losers, fanboys
and trolls like you."
"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot
|
|
On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:11:24 -0500, Nina DiBoy <nin[ at ]di.boy> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >I have only 1 criticism of your graph. Vista needs more than 10 GB HDD
>space unless you are knowledgeable and turn off a bunch of stuff!
This reminds me of an article I read a while back in some computing
mag that showed that as each generation of software comes out, the
computing horse power to handle them has to be more just to keep you
flowing at the same rate as you were before. According to the
article, this is due to Applications & OS’s becoming more and more
bloated with each generation, each generation of programmers becoming
more and more “sloppy” code writers compared to programmers of the
past that had pride in the streamline architecture of their code and
the big move today to have all applications and OS’s as “Suits”
instead of focusing. With that, what use to take a task 5 seconds to
do on an 8088 machine and software of that day still takes the same 5
seconds today with today’s software even though the system’s
processing speed is now light year’s ahead of what is was in the 8088
days. The article gave specific examples of well known applications
and OS’s today and yesterday to back up some of its comparisons.
I guess someone has a real way to measure this and I have no idea if
the article holds water or not but it “sort of” made sense to me. I
can’t measure tasks in nanoseconds but I do know that it takes around
30 seconds for my 2.0 GHz machine with 1Gig memory to load XP-SP2 and
that it took my 8088 machine with 256K of memory around the same 30
seconds to load windows 3.1
There will be those that argue that we can do so much more today with
our systems than we did yesterday. True and the article was not
arguing that… it was showing that the speed with “comparable” tasks
has not changed that much even though we are now running processors
light speed ahead of what we had back in the 8088 days.
Let’s say you have a car that weighs 3000lbs with a 200 HP engine to
make it do 0 to 60 in 10 seconds. Now you get a car that weighs
4000lbs and it needs 250 HP in order to achieve the same identical 0
to 60 in 10 seconds. You got more horsepower but it still takes the
same 10 seconds to get from 0 to 60 because the car has become bloated
with extra weight. BUT… the car is bigger (more bloated) because it
has a Suit and more bells & whistles instead of a seat and just a few
knobs so… one could surmise that yes, it still takes you 10 seconds to
go from 0 to 60 but look at the style with which you are doing it in.
In closing, I think Jay Leno on the Tonight Show said it best when he
said that he finally went out and bought a computer twice as fast as
his last computer… problem was, it came with an operating system twice
as big as the one before so… he was back where he started except a
little more light in the wallet (not that Jay Leno would ever feel
lighter in the wallet).
Regards
|
|
Stan
You don't talk like you've been around since the 8088 days? You either
haven't been around that long or you have learned very little since then.
A few facts that you are forgetting about.
1. Advances in hardware technology is what drives operating system
development, not the other way around.
2. The biggest reason for operating system bloat is backward compatibility.
You are forced to leave a big chunk of the old code in there.
I wonder what the result would be if MS just decided that they didn't need
backward compatibility or the need to support more than 32MB of RAM or
anything faster than a 486?
--
Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User
"Stan" <spamblock[ at ]nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:d8uf43hplj64b8nklstfsodrmnia3ocpaj[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:11:24 -0500, Nina DiBoy <nin[ at ]di.boy> wrote:
>
>>I have only 1 criticism of your graph. Vista needs more than 10 GB HDD
>>space unless you are knowledgeable and turn off a bunch of stuff!
>
> This reminds me of an article I read a while back in some computing
> mag that showed that as each generation of software comes out, the
> computing horse power to handle them has to be more just to keep you
> flowing at the same rate as you were before. According to the
> article, this is due to Applications & OS's becoming more and more
> bloated with each generation, each generation of programmers becoming
> more and more "sloppy" code writers compared to programmers of the
> past that had pride in the streamline architecture of their code and
> the big move today to have all applications and OS's as "Suits"
> instead of focusing. With that, what use to take a task 5 seconds to
> do on an 8088 machine and software of that day still takes the same 5
> seconds today with today's software even though the system's
> processing speed is now light year's ahead of what is was in the 8088
> days. The article gave specific examples of well known applications
> and OS's today and yesterday to back up some of its comparisons.
>
> I guess someone has a real way to measure this and I have no idea if
> the article holds water or not but it "sort of" made sense to me. I
> can't measure tasks in nanoseconds but I do know that it takes around
> 30 seconds for my 2.0 GHz machine with 1Gig memory to load XP-SP2 and
> that it took my 8088 machine with 256K of memory around the same 30
> seconds to load windows 3.1
>
> There will be those that argue that we can do so much more today with
> our systems than we did yesterday. True and the article was not
> arguing that. it was showing that the speed with "comparable" tasks
> has not changed that much even though we are now running processors
> light speed ahead of what we had back in the 8088 days.
>
> Let's say you have a car that weighs 3000lbs with a 200 HP engine to
> make it do 0 to 60 in 10 seconds. Now you get a car that weighs
> 4000lbs and it needs 250 HP in order to achieve the same identical 0
> to 60 in 10 seconds. You got more horsepower but it still takes the
> same 10 seconds to get from 0 to 60 because the car has become bloated
> with extra weight. BUT. the car is bigger (more bloated) because it
> has a Suit and more bells & whistles instead of a seat and just a few
> knobs so. one could surmise that yes, it still takes you 10 seconds to
> go from 0 to 60 but look at the style with which you are doing it in.
>
> In closing, I think Jay Leno on the Tonight Show said it best when he
> said that he finally went out and bought a computer twice as fast as
> his last computer. problem was, it came with an operating system twice
> as big as the one before so. he was back where he started except a
> little more light in the wallet (not that Jay Leno would ever feel
> lighter in the wallet).
>
> Regards
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > 1. Advances in hardware technology is what drives operating system
> development, not the other way around.
Hi,
No disrespect, but if my memory serves me right, Andy Grove once mentioned
in many years ago, that it's "both ways".
PS: The following are not quotes.
New applications (not necessary OS) with more features and functions will
require more power from hardware while advanced hardware will also provide
more rooms for application developers.
Both software (including but not limited to OS) and hardware drive each
other to further advancement, provided users appreciate the new
developments.
Based on my limited experience, I do think he is right.
"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv[ at ]invalid.org> wrote in message
news:OBHMibflHHA.3656[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Stan
>
> You don't talk like you've been around since the 8088 days? You either
> haven't been around that long or you have learned very little since then.
>
> A few facts that you are forgetting about.
>
> 1. Advances in hardware technology is what drives operating system
> development, not the other way around.
>
> 2. The biggest reason for operating system bloat is backward
> compatibility. You are forced to leave a big chunk of the old code in
> there.
>
> I wonder what the result would be if MS just decided that they didn't need
> backward compatibility or the need to support more than 32MB of RAM or
> anything faster than a 486?
>
>
> --
>
> Ronnie Vernon
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "Stan" <spamblock[ at ]nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:d8uf43hplj64b8nklstfsodrmnia3ocpaj[ at ]4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:11:24 -0500, Nina DiBoy <nin[ at ]di.boy> wrote:
>>
>>>I have only 1 criticism of your graph. Vista needs more than 10 GB HDD
>>>space unless you are knowledgeable and turn off a bunch of stuff!
>>
>> This reminds me of an article I read a while back in some computing
>> mag that showed that as each generation of software comes out, the
>> computing horse power to handle them has to be more just to keep you
>> flowing at the same rate as you were before. According to the
>> article, this is due to Applications & OS's becoming more and more
>> bloated with each generation, each generation of programmers becoming
>> more and more "sloppy" code writers compared to programmers of the
>> past that had pride in the streamline architecture of their code and
>> the big move today to have all applications and OS's as "Suits"
>> instead of focusing. With that, what use to take a task 5 seconds to
>> do on an 8088 machine and software of that day still takes the same 5
>> seconds today with today's software even though the system's
>> processing speed is now light year's ahead of what is was in the 8088
>> days. The article gave specific examples of well known applications
>> and OS's today and yesterday to back up some of its comparisons.
>>
>> I guess someone has a real way to measure this and I have no idea if
>> the article holds water or not but it "sort of" made sense to me. I
>> can't measure tasks in nanoseconds but I do know that it takes around
>> 30 seconds for my 2.0 GHz machine with 1Gig memory to load XP-SP2 and
>> that it took my 8088 machine with 256K of memory around the same 30
>> seconds to load windows 3.1
>>
>> There will be those that argue that we can do so much more today with
>> our systems than we did yesterday. True and the article was not
>> arguing that. it was showing that the speed with "comparable" tasks
>> has not changed that much even though we are now running processors
>> light speed ahead of what we had back in the 8088 days.
>>
>> Let's say you have a car that weighs 3000lbs with a 200 HP engine to
>> make it do 0 to 60 in 10 seconds. Now you get a car that weighs
>> 4000lbs and it needs 250 HP in order to achieve the same identical 0
>> to 60 in 10 seconds. You got more horsepower but it still takes the
>> same 10 seconds to get from 0 to 60 because the car has become bloated
>> with extra weight. BUT. the car is bigger (more bloated) because it
>> has a Suit and more bells & whistles instead of a seat and just a few
>> knobs so. one could surmise that yes, it still takes you 10 seconds to
>> go from 0 to 60 but look at the style with which you are doing it in.
>>
>> In closing, I think Jay Leno on the Tonight Show said it best when he
>> said that he finally went out and bought a computer twice as fast as
>> his last computer. problem was, it came with an operating system twice
>> as big as the one before so. he was back where he started except a
>> little more light in the wallet (not that Jay Leno would ever feel
>> lighter in the wallet).
>>
>> Regards
>
|
|
I can hardly see how the next version of Windows will take 100 GB of space,
considering how Vista is only about 5 GB bigger than XP.
"Bob" <Bob[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6477E297-2325-46D0-804C-FCCE0CCD63D4[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > Even thought it is a futile execise I can see where Tiberius is coming > from > and as people say "who knows what the future holds" > But then again I have this De Lorien and when it gets up to 88 mph you do > see some serious s..t lolol > > "Alias" wrote: > >> Geo wrote: >> > And what is it that you want to prove to us ? >> > >> > Or do you want to call for an immediate stop of technology improvement >> > and >> > developpement ? >> >> Vista is not a development or an improvement. >> >> > If that is your concern, you should be using DOS, ain't you ? >> >> No, he should be using Linux. >> >> Alias >> > >> > "Tiberius" wrote: >> > >> >> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to >> >> year >> >> 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed "vienna" >> >> >> >> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>> >> >> >> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
|
|
You lie!!!! where the heck do you come up with such trash?
its not 5 gb bigger... its 13 GB bigger at least!
XP needs 2gb or as MS says 1.5 GB for itself. If you take into account the
vanila pre sp2 version it takes less...
as you can see here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx
Vista needs 10 but then it has the shadow copy that makes the space grow
very much too!
Even the specs on the MS site itself says 15 gb minimum!
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx
[Quoted Text] >I can hardly see how the next version of Windows will take 100 GB of space,
Yeah you didnt read the post of a person in here wondering why his vista
installation is eating 100 gb because of shadow copy space did you?
"Tony Stork" <tm24fan8[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:122E1FE9-360C-4EC4-AEC4-E043438AFEB1[ at ]microsoft.com...
>I can hardly see how the next version of Windows will take 100 GB of space,
>considering how Vista is only about 5 GB bigger than XP.
>
> "Bob" <Bob[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6477E297-2325-46D0-804C-FCCE0CCD63D4[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> Even thought it is a futile execise I can see where Tiberius is coming
>> from
>> and as people say "who knows what the future holds"
>> But then again I have this De Lorien and when it gets up to 88 mph you do
>> see some serious s..t lolol
>>
>> "Alias" wrote:
>>
>>> Geo wrote:
>>> > And what is it that you want to prove to us ?
>>> >
>>> > Or do you want to call for an immediate stop of technology improvement
>>> > and
>>> > developpement ?
>>>
>>> Vista is not a development or an improvement.
>>>
>>> > If that is your concern, you should be using DOS, ain't you ?
>>>
>>> No, he should be using Linux.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>> >
>>> > "Tiberius" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection"
>>> >> to year
>>> >> 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
>>> >> "vienna"
>>> >>
>>> >> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg
>>> >>
>>> >> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>
|
|
Yes you are right.. even the MS site says 15 for home basic! lol
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx
"Nina DiBoy" <nin[ at ]di.boy> wrote in message news:f28k0v$gtv$3[ at ]aioe.org...
[Quoted Text] > Tiberius wrote: >> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to >> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed >> "vienna" >> >> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>> >> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) >> >> > > I have only 1 criticism of your graph. Vista needs more than 10 GB HDD > space unless you are knowledgeable and turn off a bunch of stuff! > Otherwise, great graph! :) > > -- > Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: > http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html> > Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks): > "Very simple Nothing I like better than insulting Linsux losers, fanboys > and trolls like you." > > "Good poets borrow; great poets steal." > - T. S. Eliot
|
|
it is both ways of course!!!
Vista was made so slow sloppy and such a resource hog because they know they
will have multicore machines
to boat down to a crawl! lol
By the way my test machine... Vista on a 1.8 ghz machine with 1.2 gb of ram
reminds me of the speed of a pentium 133 with 64 ram and windows 2k on it!
lol
"xfile" <cou-cou[ at ]remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eayXj5glHHA.3736[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> 1. Advances in hardware technology is what drives operating system
>> development, not the other way around.
>
> Hi,
>
> No disrespect, but if my memory serves me right, Andy Grove once mentioned
> in many years ago, that it's "both ways".
>
> PS: The following are not quotes.
>
> New applications (not necessary OS) with more features and functions will
> require more power from hardware while advanced hardware will also provide
> more rooms for application developers.
>
> Both software (including but not limited to OS) and hardware drive each
> other to further advancement, provided users appreciate the new
> developments.
>
> Based on my limited experience, I do think he is right.
>
>
>
> "Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv[ at ]invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:OBHMibflHHA.3656[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Stan
>>
>> You don't talk like you've been around since the 8088 days? You either
>> haven't been around that long or you have learned very little since then.
>>
>> A few facts that you are forgetting about.
>>
>> 1. Advances in hardware technology is what drives operating system
>> development, not the other way around.
>>
>> 2. The biggest reason for operating system bloat is backward
>> compatibility. You are forced to leave a big chunk of the old code in
>> there.
>>
>> I wonder what the result would be if MS just decided that they didn't
>> need backward compatibility or the need to support more than 32MB of RAM
>> or anything faster than a 486?
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ronnie Vernon
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "Stan" <spamblock[ at ]nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:d8uf43hplj64b8nklstfsodrmnia3ocpaj[ at ]4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:11:24 -0500, Nina DiBoy <nin[ at ]di.boy> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have only 1 criticism of your graph. Vista needs more than 10 GB HDD
>>>>space unless you are knowledgeable and turn off a bunch of stuff!
>>>
>>> This reminds me of an article I read a while back in some computing
>>> mag that showed that as each generation of software comes out, the
>>> computing horse power to handle them has to be more just to keep you
>>> flowing at the same rate as you were before. According to the
>>> article, this is due to Applications & OS's becoming more and more
>>> bloated with each generation, each generation of programmers becoming
>>> more and more "sloppy" code writers compared to programmers of the
>>> past that had pride in the streamline architecture of their code and
>>> the big move today to have all applications and OS's as "Suits"
>>> instead of focusing. With that, what use to take a task 5 seconds to
>>> do on an 8088 machine and software of that day still takes the same 5
>>> seconds today with today's software even though the system's
>>> processing speed is now light year's ahead of what is was in the 8088
>>> days. The article gave specific examples of well known applications
>>> and OS's today and yesterday to back up some of its comparisons.
>>>
>>> I guess someone has a real way to measure this and I have no idea if
>>> the article holds water or not but it "sort of" made sense to me. I
>>> can't measure tasks in nanoseconds but I do know that it takes around
>>> 30 seconds for my 2.0 GHz machine with 1Gig memory to load XP-SP2 and
>>> that it took my 8088 machine with 256K of memory around the same 30
>>> seconds to load windows 3.1
>>>
>>> There will be those that argue that we can do so much more today with
>>> our systems than we did yesterday. True and the article was not
>>> arguing that. it was showing that the speed with "comparable" tasks
>>> has not changed that much even though we are now running processors
>>> light speed ahead of what we had back in the 8088 days.
>>>
>>> Let's say you have a car that weighs 3000lbs with a 200 HP engine to
>>> make it do 0 to 60 in 10 seconds. Now you get a car that weighs
>>> 4000lbs and it needs 250 HP in order to achieve the same identical 0
>>> to 60 in 10 seconds. You got more horsepower but it still takes the
>>> same 10 seconds to get from 0 to 60 because the car has become bloated
>>> with extra weight. BUT. the car is bigger (more bloated) because it
>>> has a Suit and more bells & whistles instead of a seat and just a few
>>> knobs so. one could surmise that yes, it still takes you 10 seconds to
>>> go from 0 to 60 but look at the style with which you are doing it in.
>>>
>>> In closing, I think Jay Leno on the Tonight Show said it best when he
>>> said that he finally went out and bought a computer twice as fast as
>>> his last computer. problem was, it came with an operating system twice
>>> as big as the one before so. he was back where he started except a
>>> little more light in the wallet (not that Jay Leno would ever feel
>>> lighter in the wallet).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>
>
>
|
|
no its the trend... there are mathematics that can give a precise indication
... but no one can know the
future for sure... If I was to declare that I am predicting the future for
sure without a deviation then
you would say I cannot do that! So stop the crap please....
They (MS) did not change their policy from 1995 to 2007, what makes you
think they will stop bloating
in 2010??
"bp" <bp[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6BD9C46E-3149-4084-A1A1-6AAFA8F9B6C2[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > > > "Julian" wrote: > >> "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message >> news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> > Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to >> > year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed >> > "vienna" >> > >> > http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>> > >> > Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) >> >> Lies, damned lies, and statistics >> >> Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM and >> Z/OS >> systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context. >> >> As it stand, without comparison to alternatives, your graphs are >> meaningless. > > The fact that he made them with his " possible projections" makes them > useless > I can make one that says the new self compressing OS's will only need 1 > meg and it's just as meaningful. >>
|
|
I think you'll find that on a Vista instance the bulk of the disk space is
now consumed by the Side-by-Side components in \Windows\Winsxs.
Usually taking up around 3.6 Gigabytes of disk space.
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote in message
news:%23opzKLjlHHA.4872[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > You lie!!!! where the heck do you come up with such trash? > > its not 5 gb bigger... its 13 GB bigger at least! > > XP needs 2gb or as MS says 1.5 GB for itself. If you take into account the > vanila pre sp2 version it takes less... > as you can see here: > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx> > Vista needs 10 but then it has the shadow copy that makes the space grow > very much too! > > Even the specs on the MS site itself says 15 gb minimum! > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx> >>I can hardly see how the next version of Windows will take 100 GB of >>space, > > Yeah you didnt read the post of a person in here wondering why his vista > installation is eating 100 gb because of shadow copy space did you? > > > > "Tony Stork" <tm24fan8[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message > news:122E1FE9-360C-4EC4-AEC4-E043438AFEB1[ at ]microsoft.com... >>I can hardly see how the next version of Windows will take 100 GB of >>space, considering how Vista is only about 5 GB bigger than XP. >> >> "Bob" <Bob[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:6477E297-2325-46D0-804C-FCCE0CCD63D4[ at ]microsoft.com... >>> Even thought it is a futile execise I can see where Tiberius is coming >>> from >>> and as people say "who knows what the future holds" >>> But then again I have this De Lorien and when it gets up to 88 mph you >>> do >>> see some serious s..t lolol >>> >>> "Alias" wrote: >>> >>>> Geo wrote: >>>> > And what is it that you want to prove to us ? >>>> > >>>> > Or do you want to call for an immediate stop of technology >>>> > improvement and >>>> > developpement ? >>>> >>>> Vista is not a development or an improvement. >>>> >>>> > If that is your concern, you should be using DOS, ain't you ? >>>> >>>> No, he should be using Linux. >>>> >>>> Alias >>>> > >>>> > "Tiberius" wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" >>>> >> to year >>>> >> 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed >>>> >> "vienna" >>>> >> >>>> >> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg>>>> >> >>>> >> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-) >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> > >
|
|
Tiberius wrote:
[Quoted Text] > no its the trend... there are mathematics that can give a precise indication
> .. but no one can know the
> future for sure... If I was to declare that I am predicting the future for
> sure without a deviation then
> you would say I cannot do that! So stop the crap please....
>
> They (MS) did not change their policy from 1995 to 2007, what makes you
> think they will stop bloating
> in 2010??
>
Let me make a simple suggestion for "people" like you.
Buy an distro of a nix os. Take out all backward compatibility. Take out
everything you don't want or need and volia!
You've got your 1kb os.
Frank
|
|
NO I dont want linux.... if you want to talk about linux go to a linux
newsgroup... not here... troll!
"Frank" <fb[ at ]nospamm.cmm> wrote in message
news:entJagjlHHA.1820[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Tiberius wrote:
>
>> no its the trend... there are mathematics that can give a precise
>> indication .. but no one can know the
>> future for sure... If I was to declare that I am predicting the future
>> for sure without a deviation then
>> you would say I cannot do that! So stop the crap please....
>>
>> They (MS) did not change their policy from 1995 to 2007, what makes you
>> think they will stop bloating
>> in 2010??
>>
> Let me make a simple suggestion for "people" like you.
> Buy an distro of a nix os. Take out all backward compatibility. Take out
> everything you don't want or need and volia!
> You've got your 1kb os.
> Frank
|
|
On Mon, 14 May 2007 00:09:29 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP"
<rv[ at ]invalid.org> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >You don't talk like you've been around since the 8088 days? You either
>haven't been around that long or you have learned very little since then.
Since you have proven that you didn't actually read the post and made
an ass out of yourself, let me quote something from that post that
just didn't seem to sink in. I'll space it out so even you might, by
accident, grasp it:
T H I S W A S F R O M A N A R T I C L E I N A
C O M P U T I N G M A G A Z I N E.
It's amazing that you quoted my entire message and still couldn't find
two brain cells to bang together in order to comprehend that it wasn't
me that came up with this but it was the:
M A G A Z I N E A R T I C L E
that said so (as so evidently said in my message for those that have
literary comprehension skills to read).
Let's try that slower so the resident inbred imbecile might have a
chance to grasp it:
M A G A Z I N E A R T I C L E
Still confused there Bubba? One more time even S L O W E R...
I T W A S F R O M A
M A G A Z I N E
A R T I C L E
Now, if you have no clue what a
M A G A Z I N E A R T I C L E
is, then I can't offer you any absolution. You will just have to go
off and squalor in your own confused, illiterate pre mortal slush.
Next time, read the message before you make such an ass out of
yourself and by all means, if you are going to fabricate what was
actually said, at least don't be so stupid as to quote the message in
your reply that you are trying to fabricate what was actually
contained within...
What an ignorant ass hole... Kid!
|
|
On Mon, 14 May 2007 02:58:11 -0700, "xfile"
<cou-cou[ at ]remove.nospam.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >New applications (not necessary OS) with more features and functions will
>require more power from hardware while advanced hardware will also provide
>more rooms for application developers.
I think that is what the Magazine Article was driving at in a way. It
was very interesting reading. Opened my eyes to something that I had
not really paid a mind to but was aware of in a way.
>Both software (including but not limited to OS) and hardware drive each
>other to further advancement, provided users appreciate the new
>developments.
And that usually leads to healthy innovations unless some feel the
need to keep pace and put products on the shelf before they are
properly tested.
BTW, its nice to see someone that actually read my post and
comprehended the part where I said:
>>> This reminds me of an article I read a while back
Best regards,
|
|
On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:19:17 +0300, "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >Vista was made so slow sloppy and such a resource hog because they know they
>will have multicore machines to boat down to a crawl! lol
The article said as much except it didn't point fingers at any
specific product. The article did say that with the advent of more
powerful, faster systems, a lot of software houses are being less
"streamlined with the Architecture of their code" (Sloppy Programming)
unlike they had to be in the 8088 days and that if coders were as
vigilant about the streamlining with the Architecture of their code
today as they had to be in the 8088 days, we would be seeing the power
of today's systems really come alive and not being bogged down.
This thing was in a magazine I was reading at the dentist office and I
wish I had written down the magazine name, year and month of the
article so I could see if it was available on line for others to read.
Needless to say, it was interesting.
Regards,
|
|
On Mon, 14 May 2007 00:09:29 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP"
<rv[ at ]invalid.org> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >A few facts that you are forgetting about.
No matter how it gets censored Boy, its still from a
M A G A Z I N E A R T I C L E
And you still can't comprehend that simple little fact.
and you are still inbred
go censor that and we will just post it again.... Boy
|
|
Stan
If you have trouble comprehending my response, just use the scroll wheel to
take a look at what you posted. It's that little curved part on the top of
the mouse with the ridges.
So, let me get this straight, you posted information you read in an unknown
article of an unknown magazine that was published on an unknown date, right?
And your not really sure "if the article holds water or not but it "sort of"
made sense to me." (direct quote in case you don't know how to retrieve your
original message) Then you added some story you made up comparing a car to
to computers? Then the coup de grâce, a statement from a late night
comedian?
I don't think I'm the one having problems with brain cells?
If you have something to contribute to the subject of the thread, please do,
but try to make it based on something that you actually know.
--
Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User
"Stan" <spamblock[ at ]nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:mq0h431i2q0qeaafdnc96sdoa5k288klmj[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Mon, 14 May 2007 00:09:29 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP"
> <rv[ at ]invalid.org> wrote:
>
>>You don't talk like you've been around since the 8088 days? You either
>>haven't been around that long or you have learned very little since then.
>
> Since you have proven that you didn't actually read the post and made
> an ass out of yourself, let me quote something from that post that
> just didn't seem to sink in. I'll space it out so even you might, by
> accident, grasp it:
>
> T H I S W A S F R O M A N A R T I C L E I N A
> C O M P U T I N G M A G A Z I N E.
>
> It's amazing that you quoted my entire message and still couldn't find
> two brain cells to bang together in order to comprehend that it wasn't
> me that came up with this but it was the:
>
> M A G A Z I N E A R T I C L E
>
> that said so (as so evidently said in my message for those that have
> literary comprehension skills to read).
>
> Let's try that slower so the resident inbred imbecile might have a
> chance to grasp it:
>
> M A G A Z I N E A R T I C L E
>
> Still confused there Bubba? One more time even S L O W E R...
>
> I T W A S F R O M A
> M A G A Z I N E
> A R T I C L E
>
> Now, if you have no clue what a
> M A G A Z I N E A R T I C L E
> is, then I can't offer you any absolution. You will just have to go
> off and squalor in your own confused, illiterate pre mortal slush.
>
> Next time, read the message before you make such an ass out of
> yourself and by all means, if you are going to fabricate what was
> actually said, at least don't be so stupid as to quote the message in
> your reply that you are trying to fabricate what was actually
> contained within...
>
> What an ignorant ass hole... Kid!
|
|
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote
[Quoted Text] > You lie!!!! where the heck do you come up with such trash? > > its not 5 gb bigger... its 13 GB bigger at least! > > XP needs 2gb or as MS says 1.5 GB for itself. If you take into account the > vanila pre sp2 version it takes less... > as you can see here: > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx> > Vista needs 10 but then it has the shadow copy that makes the space grow > very much too! > > Even the specs on the MS site itself says 15 gb minimum! > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx> >>I can hardly see how the next version of Windows will take 100 GB of >>space, > > Yeah you didnt read the post of a person in here wondering why his vista > installation is eating 100 gb because of shadow copy space did you?
The 15GB is the space needed for the installation, not how much is used
after the OS is installed.
The poster whose OS installation is taking 100GB of space had something
changed on it. That's not normal. This one system including Vista Ultimate
and all installed apps such as Corel Word Perfect X3, Office 2007, and a
variety of other large utility and user apps is 15GB. Data is on separate
partitions.
This computer is set up in a multi-boot with XP SP2 and IE6. Apps are
installed separately for each OS. The XP installation with apps occupies a
bit over 12 GB. This XP installation has been around longer, so there are
more apps, but the difference in size is not huge.
A separate installation of XP SP2 w/ IE7 on the same system, used for
testing some apps, has a size of 4.6 GB. There are some apps installed, but
not too much right now and it's current with updates, AV and firewall.
I don't see the next version MS OS taking 100 GB for itself.
<snip>
--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > And that usually leads to healthy innovations unless some feel the
> need to keep pace and put products on the shelf before they are
> properly tested.
As far as I know, Intel was "forced" to come up multi-core chips; part of
reason is from AMD and another major reason is to handle increasing
multitasking while clock has almost reached to its limit.
But now we have multi-core chips, we can expect to see even more innovative
applications coming out.
Yes, that's part of healthy ecosystem.
"Stan" <spamblock[ at ]nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:952h43h6rotfq9neet3u2ge60epmb1gtlb[ at ]4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 02:58:11 -0700, "xfile"
> <cou-cou[ at ]remove.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>New applications (not necessary OS) with more features and functions will
>>require more power from hardware while advanced hardware will also provide
>>more rooms for application developers.
>
> I think that is what the Magazine Article was driving at in a way. It
> was very interesting reading. Opened my eyes to something that I had
> not really paid a mind to but was aware of in a way.
>
>>Both software (including but not limited to OS) and hardware drive each
>>other to further advancement, provided users appreciate the new
>>developments.
>
> And that usually leads to healthy innovations unless some feel the
> need to keep pace and put products on the shelf before they are
> properly tested.
>
> BTW, its nice to see someone that actually read my post and
> comprehended the part where I said:
>>>> This reminds me of an article I read a while back
>
> Best regards,
|
|
Thats why I originaly said it needs 10 not 15..
and that is how much I have seen
but in the graph I should have followed strictly the numbers MS gives for
each OS...
and that would make the slope even worse ...
"Rock" <Rock[ at ]nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uzk7mNnlHHA.5084[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote >> You lie!!!! where the heck do you come up with such trash? >> >> its not 5 gb bigger... its 13 GB bigger at least! >> >> XP needs 2gb or as MS says 1.5 GB for itself. If you take into account >> the vanila pre sp2 version it takes less... >> as you can see here: >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx>> >> Vista needs 10 but then it has the shadow copy that makes the space grow >> very much too! >> >> Even the specs on the MS site itself says 15 gb minimum! >> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx>> >>>I can hardly see how the next version of Windows will take 100 GB of >>>space, >> >> Yeah you didnt read the post of a person in here wondering why his vista >> installation is eating 100 gb because of shadow copy space did you? > > The 15GB is the space needed for the installation, not how much is used > after the OS is installed. > > The poster whose OS installation is taking 100GB of space had something > changed on it. That's not normal. This one system including Vista > Ultimate and all installed apps such as Corel Word Perfect X3, Office > 2007, and a variety of other large utility and user apps is 15GB. Data is > on separate partitions. > > This computer is set up in a multi-boot with XP SP2 and IE6. Apps are > installed separately for each OS. The XP installation with apps occupies > a bit over 12 GB. This XP installation has been around longer, so there > are more apps, but the difference in size is not huge. > > A separate installation of XP SP2 w/ IE7 on the same system, used for > testing some apps, has a size of 4.6 GB. There are some apps installed, > but not too much right now and it's current with updates, AV and firewall. > > I don't see the next version MS OS taking 100 GB for itself. > > <snip> > > -- > Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
|
|
"Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote
[Quoted Text] > Thats why I originaly said it needs 10 not 15..
> and that is how much I have seen
>
> but in the graph I should have followed strictly the numbers MS gives for
> each OS...
>
> and that would make the slope even worse ...
Sure you have to choose some comparison point. My numbers are very
subjective, obviously, because there is not a one to one correspondence on
installed apps, however, there is usefulness in seeing what goes in an
example of a real world installation as opposed to marketing numbers.
I don't believe the next MS OS will take 100 GB for itself.
--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
|
|
Tiberius wrote:
,,,,,,,,,,,,ridiculous diatribe deleted;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Let me ask you a question capin' crunch:
If you were able to take Vista Ultimate (which you don't have, as we all
know), and delete all of it's backward compatibility code, delete all of
it's language code's other than the few you need, delete all of the
features you can't use or don't want...how big in terms of kb's, mb's,
gig's would it be?
Because obviously, in order for Vista to cover all of those bases, for
all of those diverse users, in all those languages with all those
features, it needs to be exactly as big as it is. You may only need or
use just 1% of Vista's available code but you are only one person. If MS
decided to eliminate the 1% only you use, in order to reduce it's size,
I'm sure you'd throw a fit. Do you understand where I'm coming from?
Cause if your don't then there is no hope for you at all. And your point
is really moot cause we've moved on from 512mb HDD.
Got it?
Frank
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] >I don't believe the next MS OS will take 100 GB for itself.
No offense or any indication to if the OS is sloppiness or not, but who
knows for sure? :)
Maybe they'll add artificial intelligence or something unthinkable
innovations to it and make the size much larger :)
In my opinion, size by itself doesn't really mean anything; maybe there are
very good reasons behind it, or not.
Only those with advanced programming knowledge with access to the source
codes would know the true quality of the software.
Kind of interesting to see so many feel so "tense" about the size.
"Rock" <Rock[ at ]nospam.net> wrote in message
news:umnp$NolHHA.596[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Tiberius" <J[ at ]T.K> wrote
>> Thats why I originaly said it needs 10 not 15..
>> and that is how much I have seen
>>
>> but in the graph I should have followed strictly the numbers MS gives for
>> each OS...
>>
>> and that would make the slope even worse ...
>
> Sure you have to choose some comparison point. My numbers are very
> subjective, obviously, because there is not a one to one correspondence
> on installed apps, however, there is usefulness in seeing what goes in an
> example of a real world installation as opposed to marketing numbers.
>
> I don't believe the next MS OS will take 100 GB for itself.
>
> --
> Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
|
|
"xfile" <cou-cou[ at ]remove.nospam.com> wrote
[Quoted Text] > >I don't believe the next MS OS will take 100 GB for itself.
>
> No offense or any indication to if the OS is sloppiness or not, but who
> knows for sure? :)
>
> Maybe they'll add artificial intelligence or something unthinkable
> innovations to it and make the size much larger :)
>
> In my opinion, size by itself doesn't really mean anything; maybe there
> are very good reasons behind it, or not.
>
> Only those with advanced programming knowledge with access to the source
> codes would know the true quality of the software.
>
> Kind of interesting to see so many feel so "tense" about the size.
I'm not sure about whom you refer in the "tense" aspect. One ought to be
careful about assigning feelings to the written word, especially in a
technical discussion. It's like attributing human reactions and feelings to
the behavior of an animal (and computer folks are defininately animals). It
might seem applicable on the face of it, but no basis in reality.
Certainly no one can know for sure. The OP suggested it would be one way,
others opined differently.
Is there that much significance in the presence of the same sentence in two
successive posts?
I don't care what it ends up to be nor does it matter to me who might be
closer in the prediction. Hell we could even start a pool on it.
We all know about opinions, eh? lol
Kind of interesting to see the need to inject a perception of emotion.
Of course someone will probably draw a further conclusion that this reply
just proves the original point...oh well. People are going to believe what
they want to believe.
--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
|
|
|
| |