Freenas won't operate in 64mb now. Driver support does take up a good bit. But think about functionality we just expect. Os/2 wasn't ready with a wia/twain acquisition image. Dvd authoring and formatting capability, base functionality, media center, codecs, hd audio engine, ipv6, etc
14gb is not a huge install. Test snow leopard (when done, on the mac I have, its 21.2gb, and comes on a dual layer dvd). So there is that. Os's have grown because discs ared cheap and people expect more. Out of the box, microsoft gives youy almost 1gb of media (sample pictures, videos, tv, as well as instructional videos.. See the mediacenter setup videos, etc which ship with it) These things are designed to enhance the user experience. Giving up 14gb isn't much, imho. Hell, 2tb drives are $99 right now down the street from me. So, a gripe about 14g.. Shoot, I can get a 64gb ssd for sub $100 (well, just this weekend). I have 0 complaints about 7, which really does live up to the hype. Hell, I finally got the ceton cable card, and now, the damn thing sees all of my cable networks, all the hd, and I can record four networks at once and mix it out to my xboxes, or, storing the stuff on my whs, all others on my home network see the recordings. And it rocks. I still have the cd for my last beta of os/2 merlin. I could put it in a vm. But you know, the thing is, newer OS offers features I didn't even know I wanted then. Now I couldn't imagine not having. Sent via BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "Greg Sevart" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:56:46 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes Agreed, but with a little different argument. Expecting Microsoft to keep the same OS footprint, while adding 8+ years of development, 8+ years additional built-in drivers (this one should not be underestimated--baked in driver support is a good chunk of total size), and thousands of features/enhancements (including "under the covers" security/functionality enhancements, and I'm not interested in the predictable "that feature doesn't count because _I_ don't use/like it" argument) is not realistic. It's also just part of the image-based installation approach. Remember how adding features in XP sometimes requires you to point to Windows installation files, then (depending) Service Pack files, etc...that's not ever required in Vista or W7. All components are a checkbox away from installed. Some may consider that bloat, but given that it makes enhances the user experience and is less error prone, I consider it progress. Disk space is cheap, and we just aren't talking about a meaningful amount of space here. If the base OS install was 100GB, I'd completely agree with you--but it isn't. If there was economic incentive to make their flagstream client operating system smaller, they would--but I really don't think that a "Only requires xGB of disk space installed!" sticker on the front of the box is going to net them any additional meaningful sales. 64MB? Is this a serious argument? Even pfSense dropped support for 64MB CF installs on their embedded releases, and it's little more than a NanoBSD kernel, pf, and some PHP scripts. You're more than welcome to go back a decade or more if you're adamant that an OS take up no more than 64MB, but get real. You can still fit the compressed image on a $0.50 dual layer DVD, or a $15 USB thumbdrive if you want to carry an image around. Frankly, if a system is so space constrained that 14GB is enough to lose sleep over, it doesn't have any business running Vista or W7--it should be on the trash pile, or stick with whatever OS version is already on it. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Gary Jackson > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:37 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes > > > Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too > concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" > I guess. > > > At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: > >OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should > >be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. > > > >I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several > >propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will > >end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. > > > >Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP > >installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh > >install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With > >drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. > > > >Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I > >used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for > >sure gets the prize. > > > >What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs > to be > >more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even > >seen with todays' standards. > > > >/s > > > > > > > > > >
