Originally posted by SNGX1275
I find this ironic..... bear with me here and try not to flame - just make intellegent comments if you can.
I see lots of people here complaining about resource hogging (no I'm not singleing you out Soul Harvester), yet I also see a lot of people on here just itching to get their hands on the latest and greatest processors/vid cards/memory/harddrives/motherboards. So what do you expect? Of course a corporation like Microsoft is going to pay little concern to how much resources their latest OS uses. People are just goign to think "oh now my computer is slow - lets upgrade!".
[size=1]Note: I'm dual booting with Longhorn and XP and yes longhorn is a bit slower than XP but that can be tweaked (and it has been to a certain extent by me so far) and I know I could put 98SE on here and have this machine fly - but you know what - I'm plenty happy right now with how fast my machine is and I'm not going to upgrade or complain about OS speeds - if I was I would downgrade to 98SE or 95 or hell even DOS.
To see specs check my profile.[/size]
I'm not complaining about resource hogging, I'm stating as a matter of what I call, "perceptive fact."
Today I worked around with XP trying to trim down the install size.
After about an hour of determining what I did and did not need (I'm still not finished yet) I came all the way down to this (And this include
all user profiles, their emails/email attachments, their desktops, etc on my system.. around 80mb of that is email and another 70mb is stuff from office XP)
Remember, on a default install of XP, not including pagefile and hibernation, it approaches 1.3-1.5gigs of space used
This same setup, on a fresh boot, uses around 74mb RAM. This to me is amazing considering it is nigh impossible with a default install to get it to boot under 100mb. Clearly there is MUCH room for tweaking and trimming, but the point is that even after expending obscene amounts of effort I'm still left withn a Windows directory size of 644mb, (796mb entire partition) while just five short years ago, Windows 95 took only 50 some odd MB. and would boot with 8mb RAM. Windows98, 250mb and 16mb RAM. And, a few years before that, DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11 combined was 15mb.
Yes, operating systems are much more complex and robust, but in most modern day operating systems we are easily wasting 60%+ of the resources available to us.
I am not the "have to upgrade every day" type of person - I hate having to upgrade, it's such a pain in the pocketbook. If microsoft developers spent a 10th of the time they use to add new features to optimize their code, we would see a much more efficient OS, at least that is the way I perceive things.
Linux is no better. Unless you are a pro and know exactly what you are doing, the dependancies in many large distros such as Mandrake, Redhat, Suse, etc, will easily consume several gigs. Of course you could go the zipslack route, but the point remains.
There's too much fluff.
:grinthumb
