Windows disk space consumption has trended larger over time. While not desirable, the degree to which it's been allowed is due in large part to ever-increasing hard drive capacity, combined with a customer need and engineering focus that focused heavily on recover ability, data protection, increasing breadth of device support, and demand for innovative new features. However, the proliferation of Solid State Drives (SSDs) has challenged this trend, and is pushing Windows 7 to consider disk "footprint" in a much more thoughtful way and take that into account for Windows 7.The disk "footprint" refers to the total amount of physical disk space used by Windows and with Windows 7 it's likely that the system footprint will be smaller than Windows Vista with the engineering efforts across the Windows 7 team which should allow for greater flexibility in system designs by PC manufacturers.
Ever wondered why the Windows SxS directory (%System Root%\winsxs) in your Vista is occupying more disk space? E7 blog has come up with an explanation about the Windows SXS directory and why it consumes huge disk space.
With all the hard work going into Windows 7 it should truly be a fit and finish release over what we saw with Windows Vista.
It's news to me. Had no idea they actually cared about the disk footprint. Or that they were working on it. Impressive.
Regardz
Last edited by sweetsam on 21 Nov 2008 - 15:36
I, like most people have over 1TB of disk space (as mentioned above hard disks are becoming cheaper by the day).
It wouldnt bother me if the OS took up 2gb or 10gb.
I, like most people have over 1TB of disk space (as mentioned above hard disks are becoming cheaper by the day).
It wouldnt bother me if the OS took up 2gb or 10gb.
Uh, "most people" do not have 1TB of disk space.
Dear Neowin, do we really need to have image responses in the news comments? I can understand them in the forums, but in the news comments, they're just tiresome.
Begin predictable response of multiple images now...
I, like most people have over 1TB of disk space (as mentioned above hard disks are becoming cheaper by the day).
It wouldnt bother me if the OS took up 2gb or 10gb.
Wow. You obviously didn't RTFA because the change in direction has to do with the new desire for SSD technology which is (at this time) more expensive per byte than HDD.
It's simple, if you can run full Win7 Ultimate on a netbook with a 1.6Ghz CPU, and 1GB of ram on a 16 or 32GB SSD and have it run great, then MS has a big foot back into the netbook market.
And so far, Win7 seems to be holding up in that regard. And we're just at pre-beta stage.
Begin predictable response of multiple images now...
Just to make sure your prediction came true
Mine shows up as 0 bytes, even though the folder is filled with stuff lol.
Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 x64 here
Hm strange =/ I just checked it again and now it shows about 10gb haha
and strangely mine shows up as 6.40GB..
On some systems it can take some time before it starts calculating the total size. Mine's around 12GB. Reading the article now cuz I'm curious where they got all this data from
I so agree with the guy above, as long as its not loading itself to RAM who gives a toss, each version of Windows adds more and more features, why you would expect it to take less room is beyond me. not to mention the massively reduced cost of disk drives parallel to their increasing storage capacities "ohh no my 1TB (nearly standard) disk drive is being taken up by 15GB for windows, wah wah microsoft is the devil"
I so agree with the guy above, as long as its not loading itself to RAM who gives a toss, each version of Windows adds more and more features, why you would expect it to take less room is beyond me. not to mention the massively reduced cost of disk drives parallel to their increasing storage capacities "ohh no my 1TB (nearly standard) disk drive is being taken up by 15GB for windows, wah wah microsoft is the devil"
if you have one
doesnt mean that all of us have TB HD or that it is so cheap
the last time i installed vista it become so pigged down about 25GB+ for windows alone and that with both paging and S4 state in windows disabled
doesnt mean that all of us have TB HD or that it is so cheap
the last time i installed vista it become so pigged down about 25GB+ for windows alone and that with both paging and S4 state in windows disabled
Yes exactly, I assume everyone on the planet has one because I have one...oh wait I dont have one...but last time I arranged and ordered Dells for our work the standard option was 500GB...Windows 7 is due out in 2010...do you not think 1TB will become standard for new computers, and thus the standard for most desktop computers come 2009/2010?
Actually dont anwer that I have very little concern for the opinions of ppl who are afforded such large diskspace and still windge of Windows taking up such a small percentage of that. I simply implore you to vacate the Windows market and go have you wine with a serving of linux or mac for that matter.
I so agree with the guy above, as long as its not loading itself to RAM who gives a toss, each version of Windows adds more and more features, why you would expect it to take less room is beyond me. not to mention the massively reduced cost of disk drives parallel to their increasing storage capacities "ohh no my 1TB (nearly standard) disk drive is being taken up by 15GB for windows, wah wah microsoft is the devil"
if you have one
doesnt mean that all of us have TB HD or that it is so cheap
the last time i installed vista it become so pigged down about 25GB+ for windows alone and that with both paging and S4 state in windows disabled
25gb+ wth? Where do you get this number from? My windows folder is 18gb. Winsxs takes up 10gb so my windows folder is in reality only 8gb.
i dont see what vista brings that make it 3 times the size
i dont see what vista brings that make it 3 times the size
Uh hard linked files in the SxS folder that arn't really taking up the space at all? It's just counting file sizes twice or more which there is only one file there using that space once...
Uh good for you, but for those that are moving to SSD drives where 128GB cost almost $1,000 for a good one... and 64GB drives are $300 for a medium range one, space is more then you might think
Then thats your fault. Be smart like the rest of us and wait until SSDs drop in price. It will probably happen sooner than you think. Its common sense, dont buy anything unless you know its going to do what you want. If Vista is to much for you, install XP or Linux.
Did I say it was because of people complaining? Stop putting words in my mouth. I stated I didnt know what the big deal about space was and that includes SSDs. They are not very popular yet because of the cost, so big deal. They will get cheaper.
Windows 7 will be smaller, but I am sure someone will bitch about the size anyway.
Netbooks already use SSDs. And they are only going to fall in price as more people use them. If everyone waited like you, then we'd never start using them in the first place.
FTFY ;-)
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.