Just For My Memory Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 ...Windows 7 has been a big disappointment for me because there has been so little evolution since XP. I can even spot a few superbar bugs that were there eight years ago in XP. :( Finally, there is a complaint not from me. Link to post Share on other sites
+devHead Subscriber² Share Posted December 27, 2009 My computer is a newly-bought one with 300GB of hard disk and 4GB of RAM. But I can't stop complaining Windows 7's size compared to nice Windows XP one. Maybe then it would be better for you just to go back to Windows XP. Otherwise, posts like this are simply put out there as flamebait, it seems. If Windows XP is nice and Windows 7 is a disappointment, uninstall it and go back to XP. It's that simple. Link to post Share on other sites
Xilo Share Posted December 27, 2009 Make me happy, name these added features that take many gigabytes more space than what Win XP did.Windows 7 has been a big disappointment for me because there has been so little evolution since XP. I can even spot a few superbar bugs that were there eight years ago in XP. :( This made me lol. Windows 7 is a huge improvement and evolution over XP. A 'superbug' would be a showstopping bug that prevents functionality. There is nothing like this in XP or 7. Topic should be locked. Link to post Share on other sites
hdood Share Posted December 27, 2009 6/10, not quite. Usually, bigger size will make software runs slower. Most of the gigabytes that make up Windows 7 sit idle most of the time. Also, if one wanted to be really pedantic, then faster code is virtually always larger (but not necessarily the other way around). If you are anal about optimizing for size and low resource use, then the result will be slower. Link to post Share on other sites
yxz Share Posted December 27, 2009 The Great Moore's Law Compensator (TGMLC), generally referred to as bloat, is the principle that successive generations of computer software acquire enough bloat to offset the performance gains predicted by Moore's Law. In a 2008 article in InfoWorld, Randall C. Kennedy, formerly of Intel, introduces this term using successive versions of Microsoft Office between the year 2000 and 2007 as his premise. Despite the gains in computational performance during this time period according to Moore's law, Office 2007 performed the same task at half the speed on a prototypical year 2007 computer as compared to Office 2000 on a year 2000 computer. http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/fa...at-278?page=0,4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law Link to post Share on other sites
Just For My Memory Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 ... there are tools out there but new users want to explore more... MS is obviously not going to cut fat :p Yes, so that means Windows 7 is still bloat - the title of my post ... newcomers know nothing about size, they like the fancy. Add to that, they request more fancy... This is so wrong, this is not fancy... It can be reality! Link to post Share on other sites
JunkMail Share Posted December 27, 2009 Yes, so that means Windows 7 is still bloat - the title of my postThis is so wrong, this is not fancy... It can be reality! As long as you think its a fat (the language for you). Everything new is fancy, now you're arguing there is nothing fancy in 7? did you ever notice something new in Taskbar etc? Why is it difficult for you to remove things you don't like? WMP can be removed, other components can be removed with third party softwares if you're so paranoid of space or performance or something? Link to post Share on other sites
Xilo Share Posted December 27, 2009 Yes, so that means Windows 7 is still bloat - the title of my post Removing functionality for the sake of a few GB's because users want to install a new piece of software on a computer a decade old is stupid. It's called updating your technology. BTW: I use a 40GB drive with all my programs and Windows 7 installed. Link to post Share on other sites
Just For My Memory Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 How many times are you going to post your exact same opinion and arguments in the same thread? :laugh: If you can't handle reading other people's opinions that don't agree with yours don't participate in forum discussions. I'm so positive, OMG! :wacko: Yes, I'm surprised when you're so positive, too. Please don't compare it with small-rich people, please compare with most user around the globe, they just don't have much money for BUYING NEW HDD time for them to buy a bigger HD then Yes, in economic recess time. Link to post Share on other sites
Xilo Share Posted December 27, 2009 Yes, I'm surprised when you're so positive, too. Please don't compare it with small-rich people, please compare with most user around the globe, they just don't have much money for BUYING NEW HDDYes, in economic recess time. Windows 7 costs more than a 2TB drive. If you can afford Windows 7, but not afford bigger hard drives, you've got bigger problems. Learn to prioritize. Link to post Share on other sites
Just For My Memory Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 Maybe then it would be better for you just to go back to Windows XP. Otherwise, posts like this are simply put out there as flamebait, it seems. If Windows XP is nice and Windows 7 is a disappointment, uninstall it and go back to XP. It's that simple. Why do you always say I have to move to another OS? I think I complained this because it's for everyone: to have more disk space. This is complain to make things better, not worse. (Windows 7 released recently but there's a lot of its fanboys) Link to post Share on other sites
JunkMail Share Posted December 27, 2009 Yes, I'm surprised when you're so positive, too. Please don't compare it with small-rich people, please compare with most user around the globe, they just don't have much money for BUYING NEW HDDYes, in economic recess time. OMG how poor are you? you really can't get HDD? ever saw eBay etc? wait, if you're saying "I'm not poor" then you guessed people other then you are mostly poor who cannot afford HD? Link to post Share on other sites
Growled Member Share Posted December 27, 2009 Since 4 to 6 GB of RAM in computers is common, I'm not sure why 7 is seen as bloated. Link to post Share on other sites
Just For My Memory Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 ...Topic should be locked. You are troll. Link to post Share on other sites
+devHead Subscriber² Share Posted December 27, 2009 Why do you always say I have to move to another OS?I think I complained this because it's for everyone: to have more disk space. This is complain to make things better, not worse. (Windows 7 released recently but there's a lot of its fanboys) I didn't say you have to move to another OS; just if you think it takes up too much space, you can go back to one that doesn't use as much space. There is no way that complaining on a forum that an OS taking up 8 GB space is bloated is going to make anything better. FYI, just because some have installed Windows 7 and think that it works really well doesn't make them fanboys. Link to post Share on other sites
Just For My Memory Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 ... WMP can be removed, other components can be removed with third party softwares... I removed a lot of features, but the size is the same. It just removed vitually on Start Menu and Program Files only, files (in disk: WinSxS) are still there. Link to post Share on other sites
dr_crabman Share Posted December 27, 2009 I think I complained this because it's for everyone: to have more disk space. This is complain to make things better, not worse. You're equating "better" with "more available disk space" and that's not nessecarily valid. There are performance- and convenience-reasons for sacrificing space. If I remember correctly MS explained some of their decisions on the "Engineering Windows 7"-Blog and in the end it's nice to make things smaller but it's not the main goal anymore. Convenience is, i.e. having not to insert the DVD when re-installing features. And compressing stuff can lead to slower performance. Obviously you don't like to hear it, but few people still care how big their OS is. And if you can afford Windows 7 (I hope you did buy it....), you can afford a hard drive. Link to post Share on other sites
Roger H. Veteran Share Posted December 27, 2009 Here let's strip down Windows 7 with no included drivers for ANYTHING and save about 1.5GB from the disc. So it would be a 900MB ISO. Then it would install to about 2-3GB and NOTHING would work since there's no drivers. Said person would have to try to somehow get drivers from another PC to a USB key (which wont work since it doesn't have mass storage drivers installed since they were removed), network drivers or something else to get the system up to date. It would be a lean machine because it wouldn't have anything on there. Link to post Share on other sites
MS Bob 10 Share Posted December 27, 2009 Well I can tolerate all the components which can be called "bloated" because Windows 7 does allow "turning them off" more so flexibly than even XP. But I can't tolerate the very design of the component-based servicing which itself is way too bloated AND slow, large amount of I/O and CPU involved. They install all of the OS in %windir%\WinSxS with the components separate into ridiculous long "unique" names and so many folders that it's become a good way to benchmark Explorer's speed. They also include ALL the language files and hard link the OS binaries from there. All so when the OS is serviced, it is the WinSxS that is serviced and users don't have to pop in the OS disc when adding or removing components and for eliminating situations when after installing hotfixes or SP1, some RTM or pre-hotfix components get installed from the OS disc. The whole process of installing even a single hotfix is so slow, it takes a lot of space now (no /nobackup switch like Update.exe had) and makes the user wait at logoff and logon too after he's installed hotfixes. And if the system hangs or power lost during installing a hotfix or reconfiguring components, Windows Vista/7 end up stuck at the Welcome screen showing "Please wait while updates are being installed" (internet forums are littered with this problem) or the Add or Remove components list goes empty. So much for "reliable and consistent servicing". Every once in a while, they release a bloated update to "fix the inconistency in the Windows servicing store". And eventually it is solely WinSxS that will increase the OS footprint by leaps and bounds as you install more updates and suddenly you realize the partition size you allocated for the Windows partition isn't enough for it any more. (Yeah I know the size of WinSxS is not what Explorer reports as it doesn't exclude hard links but yes WinSxS does eventually eat up your Windows partition) So yes, Windows Vista and Windows 7 ARE bloated. Because of the disaster that is the servicing stack that doesn't even support slipstreaming any more. The other bloating your HDD folder is %windir%\system32\Driverstore which can also be got rid of if the OS is designed with HDD space in mind. By design, these OSes don't care about space any more since storage has become cheap. (Why does the embedded counterpart of Windows 7 not have all the components but XP Embedded has everything of XP Professional?) Link to post Share on other sites
Just For My Memory Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 OMG how poor are you? you really can't get HDD? ever saw eBay etc? wait, if you're saying "I'm not poor" then you guessed people other then you are mostly poor who cannot afford HD? My friends are poor, I'm better a bit. I can get HDD, It's just expensive for most people in my country. I saw eBay and I hated it. I saw Neowin, Zdnet, Download.com, Betanews, WinBeta, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, IBM, Symantec,... Are you satisfied? Link to post Share on other sites
Xilo Share Posted December 27, 2009 Can't pirate hard drives like you can Windows. :p Link to post Share on other sites
Just For My Memory Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 Since 4 to 6 GB of RAM in computers is common, I'm not sure why 7 is seen as bloated. Since 4 to 6 GB of RAM in computers is common: memory 7 is seen as bloated.: disk space. Check again Link to post Share on other sites
MrChainsaw Share Posted December 27, 2009 Well geee....hard drives are so expensive these days... /s Link to post Share on other sites
Subject Delta Share Posted December 27, 2009 Windows 7 installation disc is approx. 2,45 GB and installed size is approx. 8 GB.I know Windows 7 runs faster, but It's only a bit faster. It's still slow, compared to Windows XP. Windows XP is slow compared to Windows 3.1 as well, and Windows 3.1 only uses about 100 megs of space. Don't see the point you are making here really My computer is a newly-bought one with 300GB of hard disk and 4GB of RAM. But I can't stop complaining Windows 7's size compared to nice Windows XP one. Windows XP won't even utilise all 4 gigs of your ram anyway. It always amuses me how people come to a companies defence when someone makes a statement about what they feel is lacking in a product. As consumers we should always be asking for more and not defending a brand because we feel in some way we identify with it. Like you do with OSX you mean? Pot, Kettle, Black Windows 7 has been a big disappointment for me because there has been so little evolution since XP. I can even spot a few superbar bugs that were there eight years ago in XP. :( Wait a minute, you spotted a superbar bug in Windows XP, even though the superbar is new to Windows 7? DOES...NOT...COMPUTE! Link to post Share on other sites
JunkMail Share Posted December 27, 2009 I removed a lot of features, but the size is the same. It just removed vitually on Start Menu and Program Files only, files (in disk: WinSxS) are still there. Some demanded features of previous version are part of this one... If everyone got bored of bloat, they'll eventually stop using windows but that day is too far since many users actually like it. There were many who didn't like XP after W98 or 2000 but eventually now they like it. The same rule applies here... You'll not like it now but eventually you may either stop using it and slap MS OR you'll continue using it (its the statistics that MS is after, ratings is what everything has become from news to TV channels) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts