Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : Windows7? |
|
Answer» I just pulled it down ... can't believe how bloated it is, 2.5 Gig OS! I just pulled it down ... can't believe how bloated it is, 2.5 Gig OS!Thats not very bloated, really. I've been using it for the last week, great OS, faster than Vista on this machine... Trying to fully convert to Windows 7 at this moment, however, I am having difficulties deleting the current Windows 7 partition... my dads computer failed miserably a couple of weeks ago, I installed windows 7 on it and its away like a charm. Previously it was running windows XP SP2, but now it is just 7. It runs office 2000 brilliantly ftw... Very Bloated? How much does Vista need? Foggs, you will be surprised when you install it.i never even touched Vista. but your right Carbon, Vista requires an enormous (IMO) amount of space to install - I was referring to the W7 compile however. Long ago, I've had servers running off of zip drives. It is amazing how things have changed over the years. Microsofts' current offering requires a larger hard disk (for joe-shmoes computer at home) than a major search ENGINE used to cache all of the internet 10 years ago - If you never touched Vista why do you bash it as an OS ? ? Just curios.Define:Hyperbole;Exaggeration Quote from: foggs on February 05, 2009, 08:58:38 AM It is amazing how things have changed over the years. Microsofts' current offering requires a larger hard disk than a major search engine used to cache all of the internet 10 years ago the internet was WELL established in 1998. It would have taken far more then 15GB to cache it- but search engines then (before google, that is) didn't Cache pages, but rather "indexed" them.omg. do you think i am challenging your knowledge? I KNOW From personal experience the index for a specific top 10 engine 10 years ago was on a drive smaller than 40gig. I do not "bash" Vista. I know many, many developers and programmers that had a hard time writing for that platform when it was in beta, so i avoided it, and recommended it be avoided. They as I, can't understand the voluminous amount of code that comes out from them for an OS. If you have any history in the field you know how small they can get. Regardless MS gets the Lionshare of the market. I am not complaining, I previously was employed by a MS Partner, so in a way, they paid my bills I circumvented VIsta, although i am eager to spend time with W7, which i have, but have yet to play with Quote from: foggs on February 05, 2009, 10:13:40 AM I KNOW From personal experience the index for a specific top 10 engine 10 years ago was on a drive smaller than 40gig. An index and a cache are two separate things. an index will keep track of the page URL. a cache literally stores the contents of that URL. supposing that the index stores maybe a good KB of data for each page- stored on the 37.5GB drive (BIOS limitations of the day- likely the size you mean) 37.5*1024*1024=39,321,600KB Assuming ALSO that this is not the same drive used to store the OS used on the machine- (rather, it was likely to be implemented via RAID), all this space will be available for the index. Assuming a average of about 1KB to store the url and some keyword heuristics, it could store about 40 Million index entries. However, at the same time the system likely implemented some form of compression- or perhaps it didn't store the data as URL's but rather as IP addresses that could be resolved to web addresses with a reverse DNS lookup. If that were the case, then we would have a maximum size of 15 bytes (four quartets and three periods), and depending on EXACTLY what data was stored for the Index entry itself, chances are the size of each record in the database averaged a good bit less then 1K, likely around 768 bytes. taking this into account, the number of records (and thus database entries) we get a good 50 Million entries. cacheing would bloat the average size of each record (containing URL, keyword data, AND the cached file) would bloat the record size up quite a large amount- the average web page of medium complexity being about 42K- so we have a drastically reduced number of possible entries given the disk size of the time, of just over 936,000, which was nothing close the the number of entries stored in a Search engine index- (google, in 1998, had an index of 26 million unique URLs,(with the previous space-conservative analysis, it would clock in at 26.6GB which was definitely doable within the size of the drive) BUT- it still required more then 15GB of space thus proving your claim is just baseless hyperbole. And regardless of the use of such hyperbole even in teh proper context, One must also analyze the relative cost of that same amount of space- after all, drives with 500GB or 750GB of space are cheaper then that 40GB drive was in 1998, so the relative cost of using 15GB on that drive would be much less. Although- I do RECOGNIZE that the OS's are getting bigger. There are a variety of reasons for that, one of them being that people are unnecessarily demanding. Also- Bonus points for comparing the size to something other then the install size of a completely separate OS, which seems to be a commonly used comparison. Quote from: foggs on February 05, 2009, 10:13:40 AM I know many, many developers and programmers that had a hard time writing for that platform when it was in beta That's true. It's a commonly known fact that developers and programmers also had trouble writing for XP when IT was in beta. Same with windows 2000. But troubles will come ... and they will pass. The introduction of new technologies in each OS... be it active Desktop in Windows 98, Windows DNA in windows 2000 or the new LUA and COM+ APIs in windows XP, and now the addition of UAC and even more restrictions on running programs in Vista, there is always a hurdle to overcome when programming under a new OS. I think the trickiest part is not only getting the program to work in the new OS but having it backward compatible with the previous generation. I could go on about using GetProcAddress and GetModuleHandle, but I'll be wasting my time since it's mostly irrelevant jargon anyway. What a spiel I myself disliked the first release of Vista, because I didn't understand why it needed so much RAM. I continued this dislike for a very long time... But as soon as I actually started doing research on how Vista manages itself and its RAM, I actually begin to understand why there never seems to be any RAM free when you are running vista - unlike windows XP, it doesn't let it just sit there, it does something with it when you aren't. And I actually am starting to like UAC...I DONT have hours to spend building a reply, I dont have any letters after my name, nor do i have thousands of posts credited to my username on these forums, and lastly I've only been involved in the field since just a bit after google came to be. So, i do have limited credibility. Let me CLarify i never said anything about Googles cache, but what i did say, is fact, not conjecture-although the search engine in question (owned by a global communications company) changed names, then changed format altogether and is no longer a search engine, although the domain lives on. Let me also just say its always been my way, to keep it simple. Our 1st pc (for the family;my 1st had a total of 2 5.25" floppies total storage) had windows 95, with office professional, installed on a 4.1 gigabyte hard drive with 128MB Ram - it was fast. At the time, it was MORE than adequate. The motherboard failed before we ran out of HD space, and it was on (line) 24-7. Although we didnt download 600 Gigs of Videos. For what other reason does someone need the 500 Gig HD's on the desktops sold today. Quote Long ago, I've had servers running off of zip drives.I doubt any of them had any necessary, fancy graphics current operating systems have.nah. .. information mostly.. things were easier back then, we just didnt know it I literally didn't own a computer until 2002, and even then it was a 286! But that computer you described would have really flew! (seriously)Quote from: foggs on February 05, 2009, 03:18:14 PM - it was fast. At the time, it was MORE than adequate.and Quote For what other reason does someone need the 500 Gig HD's on the desktops sold today.Why did you need all that HDD space? When I had my first computer, it had a 80MB hard drive on it. I thought it was PLENTY enough, that was eighty floppies, of course I wasnt going to max it out. As technology progresses, so do our demands of what it "needs". We said we wanted more eye-candy, we got it. We said we wanted more features, we got it. Vista is everything we asked for... pretty, elegant, professional, had games, and a lot of features that hardly anyone uses. Every operating system is bigger than the last. Windows 1.0 was about 720KB. 2.0 was right around the same size. 3.0 jumped, to a 7 disk installation, 6 were required. About 5MB total, I think. Excellent OS. 95 still had a floppy install, required at least 40MB. 98 175 MB 2000 required 2GB min, with 600MB of space free. XP required 1.5GB of free space. Vista did make a jump, quite a jump. It requires at least 15GB free to install, however, it wont take it all up. They take into consideration the fact that many people will install a lot of stuff. Whats unique about Vista? It included more new features than any other Microsoft OS (95 and up) ever introduced, in my opinion. Windows 7 is mainly based off Vista, but, they made many significant performance improvements, as well as added more features that users wanted, like even prettier windows. No, I'm not trying to immediately contradict you or argue, just discussing. |
|