There's some sense in WDT rant. We just need to bypass the overpopulation thing
But those 15 gigabytes are not the operating system. Minimal installation IS the operating system. The 15 gigabytes are the OS plus all the toys.
There's some sense in WDT rant. We just need to bypass the overpopulation thing
But those 15 gigabytes are not the operating system. Minimal installation IS the operating system. The 15 gigabytes are the OS plus all the toys.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
It's not so much that it needs to be 10x better. It would need to be 10x better if the average cost of disk space were anywhere close to what it was five years ago. (And even that's not really true--you'd just have to account for the marginal cost of having an OS taking up that much disk space.)So what is so much better in Vista that makes it take 10x more space than XP does.
If you want an OS with a small memory footprint, you can always use a cell phone.
So Microsoft is just not wasting any time to make the thing smaller by optimizing it, because they think they don't need to make it any smaller?
Cell phone is kind of... uncomfortable to work with
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Basically, yes. It figures into the same situation as most programming, today. Minor optimizations in memory management and efficiency don't pay off as much as they used to because the percentage of time and space saved is almost negligible.Originally Posted by maxorator
Think of it like this... if you were moving from one apartment to another and you have to pack up your stuff to fit in the truck... but consider that maybe, a second truck (or one larger truck) would only cost you a small amount of money but would save you about 6 hours in trying to pack everything in one truck. It pays off in the end to just buy the extra space. Most people think of HD space in the same way, these days. Hard drives are coming out with more space than we can handle or ever need. You say that 15GB is 16106127360 characters, but my hard drives can hold 536870912000. Think about how many books I can fit on my HDs, even after I install Vista. Nearly a county library's worth... As I said, HD space is cheap, so developers waste it at no expense to their labor time. A second spent on conserving memory and processing time is worth way more than a second spent on saving HD space.
Sent from my iPadŽ
So if I update my own program by adding no-ops to it until it reaches twice the size, but in the same time disk space costs half of what it did when I released the first version, that additional space is justified?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
No, no, no... there is a difference between "no-ops" and "not quite the same ratio of advancement to increased disk space". Vista will have more than XP. Presumably, a lot more. I wouldn't say it's going to be 10x better, but as Webmaster said, it really doesn't need to be. The unnecessary waste of disk space doesn't have to account for the extras... it also accounts for the fact that making the OS take up less space could take another 6-12 months of development and testing. In the end, when the price of disk space is factored in, it may definitely pay off if Vista is any good.
Sent from my iPadŽ
It's not a question of whether it's it's justified; it's that, from the perspective of someone deciding if that program is worthwhile, everything else being equal, it's irrelevant. (But everything isn't equal, since you'd have the earlier version so no-one would buy the new one unless those no-ops somehow managed to added some pretty graphicsSo if I update my own program by adding no-ops to it until it reaches twice the size, but in the same time disk space costs half of what it did when I released the first version, that additional space is justified?
I have a 40GB HDD. It is stupid that Vista would take 37.5% of it.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
... and there in lies the dilemma. Why spend $100+ dollars on Vista when you can spend $60- on a 160GB HD?
Sent from my iPadŽ
$85 are the cheapest available here.
Who told you I want to to buy Vista anyway?
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Umm... I would say that you did since you're so overly concerned about how much space it would take on your hard drive. Do you often like to complain about things that won't affect you at all? I think fish stinks up the house, but I don't go yelling it out because I'll never buy fish.
I bet you can get cheaper than $85 if you search the net on Euro sites that deliver to your country. That's assuming you're doing your exchange rate correctly or at all.
Sent from my iPadŽ
Yes I do.
Then I must pay at least $20 for the delivery.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
$20 for delivery?
I don't think so...
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I don't know why you guys/gals go for MS products when Linux is present and free.
When we say MS is bad, there is always an answer, don't use it. I don't like this answer but I can't find out why this answer is not satisfying.
Learn C++ (C++ Books, C Books, FAQ, Forum Search)
Code painter latest version on sourceforge DOWNLOAD NOW!
Download FSB Data Integrity Tester.
Siavosh K C
I've never said XP is bad. I am just saying that Vista takes too much disk space.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
